2017 METROBUS FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN - … METROBUS FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN . ... CURRENT METROBUS REVENUE FLEET BY PROCUREMENT YEAR ... The 2017 Metrobus Fleet Management and Facilities

2017 METROBUS FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Office of Bus Planning

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Final Report - July 2017 Version 2.1

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page i


This Page Intentionally Blank

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page ii


REVISION HISTORY

Version 2.0 February 23, 2017 Initial Submission

Version 2.0 May 22, 2017 Initial PMOC Comments

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page iii


SIGNATURE PAGE

Approved by:

___________________________________ ____________________ James Hamre, Director, Office of Bus Planning Date

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page iv


CONTENTS

REVISION HISTORY .................................................................................................................................... II

SIGNATURE PAGE ..................................................................................................................................... III

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. CURRENT METROBUS FLEET ................................................................................................................. 4 1.2. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ................................................................................................................... 5 1.3. DEFINITION OF TERMS .......................................................................................................................... 7

SECTION TWO: RIDERSHIP DEMAND GROWTH ..................................................................................... 8

2.1. RECENT RIDERSHIP GROWTH ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2. CURRENT RIDERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................. 11 2.3. RIDERSHIP GROWTH PROJECTION ....................................................................................................... 19 2.4. RIDERSHIP DEMAND FOR FLEET GROWTH ............................................................................................ 21

SECTION THREE: NETWORK DEMAND FOR FLEET GROWTH ........................................................... 23

3.1. NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................................................. 23 3.2. PERFORMANCE AND FLEET REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 25 3.3. SERVICE DESIGN MEASURES .............................................................................................................. 28 3.4 SUMMARY OF NETWORK PERFORMANCE AND FLEET REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 29 3.5. PRIORITY CORRIDOR NETWORK AND FLEET REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 40 3.6 EMERGING CORRIDORS AND FLEET REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. 40 3.7 OTHER FLEET REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 46 3.8. PROJECTION OF FLEET DEMAND ......................................................................................................... 49

SECTION FOUR: METROBUS FLEET SUPPLY ....................................................................................... 51

4.1. CURRENT FLEET COMPOSITION ........................................................................................................... 52 4.3. PLANNED FLEET PROCUREMENT ......................................................................................................... 68 4.4. PROJECTION OF FLEET SUPPLY ........................................................................................................... 72

SECTION FIVE: FLEET MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................... 75

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page v


5.1. OVERVIEW OF FLEET MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................... 76 5.2. CURRENT FLEET PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................................... 78 5.3. TYPES OF MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................... 84 5.4. MAINTENANCE CAPACITY FOR FLEET ................................................................................................... 89 5.5. DISTRIBUTION OF MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS ....................................................................................... 90 5.6. PROJECTION OF DEMAND FOR MAINTENANCE OF REVENUE VEHICLES .................................................. 91

SECTION SIX: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 93

6.1. PEAK VEHICLE SUPPLY AND DEMAND .................................................................................................. 93 6.2. LONG TERM CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................... 94

ADDENDUM ............................................................................................................................................... 96

1.0. SAFE TRACK ...................................................................................................................................... 96 2.0. RIDERSHIP ......................................................................................................................................... 96

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 100

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page vi


FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1: METROBUS SERVICE COVERAGE AREA ........................................................................... 1

FIGURE 1-2: LOCATIONS OF METROBUS FACILITIES ............................................................................ 3

FIGURE 2-1: AVERAGE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP TREND (FY10 - FY15) .................................................. 9

FIGURE 2-2: AVERAGE DAILY BUS RIDERSHIP BY YEAR AND DAY TYPE ....................................... 10

FIGURE 2-3: WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP BY RESIDENCY ............................................................................ 12

FIGURE 2-4: WEEKDAY TRIP PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 14

FIGURE 2-5: RIDERSHIP BY INCOME LEVEL ......................................................................................... 16

FIGURE 2-6: WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP BY VEHICLE OWNERSHIP .......................................................... 17

FIGURE 2-7: METROBUS ANNUAL RIDERSHIP TREND (FY09 – FY25) ............................................... 20

FIGURE 4-1: METROBUS FLEET COMPOSITION (JUNE 2015) ............................................................. 52

FIGURE 4-2: CURRENT METROBUS REVENUE FLEET BY PROCUREMENT YEAR (JUNE 2015) .... 54

FIGURE 4-3: METROBUS COMPOSITION OF FLEET AGE (JUNE 2015) .............................................. 55

FIGURE 4-4: AVERAGE AGE BY FLEET TYPE (JUNE 2015) .................................................................. 55

FIGURE 4-5: METROBUS FLEET BY FUEL TYPE (JUNE 2015) ............................................................. 56

FIGURE 4-6: METROBUS FLEET AVERAGE AGE BY FUEL TYPE (2009 – 2015) ................................ 56

FIGURE 4-7: METROBUS FLEET BY FUEL TYPE (2009 – 2015)............................................................ 57

FIGURE 4-8: FLEET FUEL TECHNOLOGY CHANGES ............................................................................ 64

FIGURE 4-9: AVERAGE AGE BY OPERATING DIVISION (JUNE 2015) ................................................. 65

FIGURE 4-10: JURISDICTIONAL DISTRIBUTION AND AVERAGE AGE OF BUSES (JUNE, 2015) ...... 67

FIGURE 4-11: PROJECTION OF AVERAGE FLEET AGE (FY16 - FY25) ................................................ 74

FIGURE 5-1: AVERAGE IN-SERVICE FAILURES BY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY .................................... 80

FIGURE 5-2: MEAN DISTANCE BETWEEN FAILURES VS AVERAGE FLEET AGE .............................. 81

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page vii


FIGURE 5-3: TARGET AND ACTUAL MDBF ............................................................................................. 82

FIGURE 5-4: MEAN DISTANCE BETWEEN FAILURES BY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY .......................... 83

FIGURE 6-1. PROJECTED FLEET DEMAND, FLEET SUPPLY, AND GARAGE CAPACITY* ................ 93

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page viii


TABLES

TABLE 1-1: METROBUS FLEET AND DIVISION ASSIGNMENT (JUNE 21, 2015) ................................... 4

TABLE 2-1: RIDERSHIP BY TIME OF DAY ............................................................................................... 13

TABLE 2-2: RIDERSHIP BY ETHNICITY ................................................................................................... 15

TABLE 2-3: MODE OF EGRESS ................................................................................................................ 18

TABLE 2-4: BUS RIDERSHIP: ACTUAL AND FORECAST ....................................................................... 19

TABLE 2-5: LOADING STANDARD BY LINE CLASSIFICATION AND TIME PERIOD............................. 21

TABLE 3-1: METROBUS MINIMUM PRODUCTIVITY THRESHOLDS ..................................................... 26

TABLE 3-2: LATE NIGHT SERVICE PRODUCTIVITY THRESHOLDS ..................................................... 26

TABLE 3-3: FREQUENCY OF SERVICE THRESHOLD ............................................................................ 28

TABLE 3-4: PEAK VEHICLE REQUIREMENT (PVR) BY DIVISION (JUNE 21, 2015) ............................. 29

TABLE 3-5: SCHEDULED PEAK VEHICLE REQUIREMENT BY LINE .................................................... 31

TABLE 3-6: PRIORITY CORRIDOR NETWORK RIDERSHIP TREND ..................................................... 42

TABLE 3-7: PRIORITY CORRIDOR NETWORK PVR NEED AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ..... 43

TABLE 3-8: LIST OF EMERGING CORRIDORS RIDERSHIP TREND ..................................................... 44

TABLE 3-9: EMERGING CORRIDORS AVERAGE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP, PVR NEED AND

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................... 45

TABLE 3-10: SPARE FLEET REQUIREMENT .......................................................................................... 48

TABLE 3-11: NETWORK DRIVEN FLEET DEMAND PROJECTION ........................................................ 50

TABLE 4-1: COMPOSITION OF METROBUS FLEET (JUNE 2015) ......................................................... 53

TABLE 4-2: AVERAGE OPERATING COST PER MILE BY FUEL TECHNOLOGY ................................. 58

TABLE 4-3: COST ITEMS ........................................................................................................................... 58

TABLE 4-4: BUS LIFECYCLE COST ESTIMATE (IN ‘000, JUNE 2015) ................................................... 59

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page ix


TABLE 4-5: EXISTING FLEET LIFECYCLE COST ESTIMATE ................................................................. 60

TABLE 4-6: IMPLEMENTING 50% CNG AND 50% HYBRID POLICY ...................................................... 60

TABLE 4-7: CONVERTING HYBRIDS TO CLEAN DIESEL ...................................................................... 61

TABLE 4-8: CONVERTING ALL BUSES TO CLEAN DIESEL ................................................................... 62

TABLE 4-9: COST COMPARISON ............................................................................................................. 63

TABLE 4-10: FLEET FUEL TECHNOLOGY CHANGES ............................................................................ 64

TABLE 4-11: BUS FLEET OPERATIONAL DISTRIBUTION BY GARAGE AND JURISDICTION (JUNE,

2015) ........................................................................................................................................................... 66

TABLE 4-12: METROBUS FLEET PROCUREMENT (2010 – 2015) ......................................................... 68

TABLE 4-13: METROBUS FLEET REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE (2016 – 2025) ..................................... 69

TABLE 4-14: METROBUS FLEET EXPANSION SCHEDULE ................................................................... 70

TABLE 4-15: SUPPLY OF REVENUE VEHICLES ..................................................................................... 72

TABLE 5-1: CAUSES OF IN-SERVICE FAILURES (FY15) ....................................................................... 79

TABLE 5-2: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE .......................................................................... 85

TABLE 5-3: MID-LIFE OVERHAUL SCHEDULE........................................................................................ 88

TABLE 5-4: CURRENT MAINTENANCE CAPACITY ................................................................................ 90

TABLE 5-5: LIST OF MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ................................................................................... 90

TABLE 5-6: PROJECTION OF MAINTENANCE DEMAND FOR REVENUE VEHICLES (BASED ON

GROWING DEMAND FOR BUS SERVICE) .............................................................................................. 92

TABLE 5-7: PROJECTION OF MAINTENANCE DEMAND FOR REVENUE VEHICLES (BASED ON

PLANNED FLEET PROCUREMENT) ........................................................................................................ 92

ADDENDUM 1: FLEET REQUIRED AND PLANNED FOR SHUTTLE SERVICES ................................... 96

ADDENDUM 2: BUS FLEET ASSIGNMENT .............................................................................................. 97

ADDENDUM 3: ROUTES WITH OVERCROWDING PROBLEMS ............................................................ 98

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page x


ADDENDUM 4: TRIPS WITH OVERCROWDING PROBLEMS ................................................................. 98

APPENDIX 1: METROBUS FLEET BY TYPE (21 JUNE, 2015) ............................................................. 101

APPENDIX 2: PEAK VEHICLE REQUIREMENT BY DIVISION AND BUS TYPE ................................... 102

APPENDIX 3: ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL BUSES FOR REVENUE SERVICE ............................. 103

APPENDIX 4: ALLOCATION OF EXPANSION BUSES FOR REVENUE SERVICE .............................. 104

APPENDIX 5: FLEET DEMAND AND SUPPLY BALANCE ..................................................................... 105

APPENDIX 6: MAXIMUM BUSES TO BE ASSIGNED AND SCHEDULED (21 JUNE 2015) .................. 106

Final Report, July, 2017. Version 2.1 Page 1


SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION

The Metrobus system was created in 1973, when Metro consolidated service provided by four different private bus companies. Metrobus serves the District of Columbia, the suburban Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince George’s and the Northern Virginia counties of Arlington and Fairfax and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax and Falls Church. Figure 1-1 shows the jurisdictions in which Metrobus operates. The system currently operates 319 routes on 175 lines and serves a population of 3.9 million within the 1,500 square miles of Metrobus service area. At the end of FY2015, Metrobus had more than 1,500 buses and serve over 11,000 bus stops. In FY2015, Metrorail and Metrobus combined carried 339 million passenger trips, 133 million of which were on Metrobus. The average daily ridership reached 443,000 trips on weekdays, 231,000 trips on Saturdays and 161,000 trips on Sundays. All Metrobus vehicles are accessible to people with disabilities and provide bike racks.

Figure 1-1: Metrobus Service Coverage Area



Metrobus is essential to the region’s transportation system. The Metrobus network has a broad reach, serving regional activity centers as well as neighborhoods located in all parts of the region. Within the WMATA service area, more than 7 percent of residents ride a bus to work during the morning peak period, including Metrobus and local bus services. Not only does Metrobus provide a reasonably priced, flexible service, but it also transports large volume ridership in major urban corridors and complements the Metrorail system by connecting feeder bus service to stations.

Metrobus operates nine full-service operating divisions, as shown in Figure 1-2. At the end of June, 2015, there were four operating facilities located in the District of Columbia accommodating 49 percent of the total fleet, three in Maryland and two in Virginia accommodating 30 percent and 21 percent of the fleet respectively. In addition, the Carmen E. Turner facility at Landover performs major corrective maintenance and the Bladensburg Division serves as the home of the Metro Heavy Overhaul Program. The Heavy Overhaul program has been so successful at extending the useful life of a transit bus that the Metro Board of Directors raised the expected service life of a standard Metrobus from 12 years to 15 years and set the target average age of the Metrobus fleet at 7½ years.

The construction work for Cinder Bed Bus Garage in Northern Virginia and Andrews Federal Center Bus Garage in Prince Georges County has started and is scheduled for opening in FY18. A new Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling facility is also anticipated to be constructed and opened at Shepherd Parkway Division in FY18. Bladensburg division is also scheduled for a major reconstruction work beginning FY18 and anticipated reopening in FY22.



Figure 1-2: Locations of Metrobus Facilities



1.1. Current Metrobus Fleet

As of June 2015, Metrobus active revenue fleet consisted of 1,571 vehicles, of which 67 are articulated buses, 93 small and the remaining 1,411 are standard size buses as shown in Table 1-1. The total fleet number includes 1,300 buses required for peak service, 243 buses under operating maintenance, 23 buses under heavy overhaul and 5 training buses.

Table 1-1: Metrobus Fleet and Division Assignment (June 21, 2015)

Division Small (1) Standard (2)

Articulated (3)

Total

Bladensburg 23 218 25 266Four Mile Run 18 204 0 222Landover 10 167 0 177Montgomery 0 195 19 214Northern 0 129 21 150Shepherd Parkway 28 197 0 225Southern Avenue 0 79 0 79West Ox 0 96 0 96Western 14 105 0 119Undergoing Heavy Overhaul 0 21 2 23

System Total 93 1411 67 1571Bus size definition: Small buses (1): vehicles with a length of 30 feet - 35 feet Standard buses (2): vehicles with a length of 35 feet - 42 feet Articulated buses (3): vehicles with a length of 60 or more feet



1.2. Organization of Report

The 2017 Metrobus Fleet Management and Facilities Plan documents the process and practice by which Metro establishes its current and projected Metrobus revenue vehicle fleet and facilities requirements. This is a planning document that provides a system-wide analysis for fleet growth from FY16 through FY25, taking into consideration current and future ridership demand, proposed service enhancements, fleet supply, as well as capacities of the Metrobus maintenance programs and facilities. This report is structured as follows:

Section 2 – Ridership Demand Growth: This section summarizes current ridership characteristics and projects ridership growth over the next ten years. It also analyzes Metrobus data using the 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey and provides an overview of the Metrobus survey results, including ridership distribution, trip purpose, mode of egress, and socioeconomic characteristics of passengers. Section 3 – Network Demand for Fleet Growth: This section provides an analysis of the demand for revenue vehicles and projects the fleet growth based on demand. The demand analysis is unconstrained and assesses the actual number of buses needed to provide a state of good operations (SOGO) to the current set of bus routes. This section also provides an overview of the performance and design measures Metro applies for network service evaluation and the current system performance and fleet requirements. Section 4 – Metrobus Fleet Supply: This section addresses the supply of Metrobus revenue vehicles based on planned fleet procurements for the period FY16 – FY25. It accounts for total buses to be owned by fiscal year, anticipated procurement, and vehicles available for service. It also outlines the current fleet composition by size, age and fueling technology and summarizes the Metrobus replacement and expansion program.

Section 5 – Fleet Maintenance: This section identifies maintenance requirements to support the projected fleet growth based on previous sections. It provides an overview of the fleet maintenance program and assesses the performance of the current Metrobus fleet.



Section 6 – Conclusion: This section summarizes ridership growth and subsequent change in demand for bus transit as it translates into demand for increased fleet size. The chapter highlights the widening gap between the fleet demand and supply by comparing current and future supply and demand of buses, the development of new and replacement garage facilities. Addendum – This section presents recent developments with regards to SafeTrack and ridership. Appendices – This section presents the summary tables for the 2015 fleet plan.



1.3. Definition of Terms

The following terms are used within this document:

• Artic – Articulated bus, with length of 60 feet or longer.

• Artic conversion – Replacement of standard buses with articulated buses.

• Choice riders – Transit riders who have a vehicle available but “chose” to make the trip by bus instead.

• CNG – Compressed Natural Gas

• MDBF – Mean distance between failures

• Mid-life rehab – Comprehensive rehabilitation of a vehicle performed when it has reached half of its useful life.

• PCN – The Metrobus Priority Corridor Network is a system of the highest ridership Metrobus corridors.



SECTION TWO: RIDERSHIP DEMAND GROWTH Metrobus has seen steady ridership growth in the past few years, largely driven by a strong recovery of the region’s economy, a well-formed transit network inclusive of rail, bus and paratransit, and a solid base of transit riders across the service area. The present and anticipated ridership increases require Metro to provide a high quality and sufficient number of fleets to meet the passenger demand and to capture the growing transit market. The 2013 Metrobus Fleet Management Plan Update used the results of the 2008 Regional Bus Survey. The 2017 Metrobus Fleet Management Plan will be based on the recently completed 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey. The process Metro uses to develop a fleet plan starts with an evaluation of current passenger demand and anticipated growth in the transit market over the next ten years. This section provides an overview of current and projected ridership growth and its impact on the Metrobus fleet.

2.1. Recent Ridership Growth

Metrobus ridership has shown steady increases since the economic downturn of FY09. Bus ridership has bounced back to the level of FY09 and continues to grow. Total bus ridership between FY10 and FY15 has grown 7.5 percent at an average of 1.5 percent per annum. During this period, the highest year on year growth of 5.7 percent was achieved in FY12. Between FY10 and FY15 average daily ridership has increased as follows:

• Weekdays by 8 percent, • Saturdays by 14 percent, and • Sundays by 21 percent

Figure 2-1 illustrates Metrobus average weekday ridership trends by month from FY10 to FY15. The trend lines show the typical seasonal fluctuation of higher summer and lower winter ridership.



Figure 2-1: Average Weekday Ridership Trend (FY10 - FY15)

Note that the FY14 line (for most months) shows the highest ridership of the past six fiscal years. It is clear that Metrobus ridership has achieved a near-complete recovery from the economic downturn, and is back on the road to continued growth.

Monthly ridership trends were mostly consistent across the past six fiscal years. The one notable exception was the large drop in ridership in February 2010 (FY10), where two severe winter snow storms within one week shut down the federal government for four days and cut into bus service and ridership.

Weekdays have the highest ridership level, averaging above 478,000 in September 2014. Between FY10 and FY15, weekday ridership has grown by 8.4 percent with an average annual growth of 1.7 percent.



Figure 2-2 below present annual ridership growth trends for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. The trend line indicates that Metrobus ridership has recovered from the economic downturn, and is back on the road to continued growth on all days of the week.

Figure 2-2: Average Daily Bus Ridership by Year and Day Type



2.2. Current Ridership Characteristics

Within the WMATA service area, 7 percent of residents ride the bus to work during the morning peak period, according to the 2013 American Community Survey. This percentage includes both Metrobus and local bus service ridership. In areas of a quarter-mile walking distance to Metrobus lines, Metrobus commuting mode share reaches 9 percent. Since 2008, the mode share of commuters using bus transit has stayed constant at 7 percent, while the mode share of commuters using any mode of transit increased slightly from 18 percent to 19 percent.

In 2014, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) conducted the 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey. The result of the survey, released in the spring of 2015, illuminated many characteristics of the current ridership.

In accordance with WMATA’s survey standardization practice, methodological updates occurred between 2008 and 2014 data reporting to improve comparability of metrics with other Authority data. Included in this practice is the reporting of valid survey percent instead of percent of total surveys. This does not significantly alter estimates. Unless otherwise specified, average weekday results are reported.



2.2.1. Distribution of Ridership by Area and Time Period Ridership by area was calculated using weekday jurisdictional boardings. Within the WMATA compact area, Metrobus boardings are highest in the District of Columbia accounting for 52.3 percent of system boardings. Maryland boardings account for 32.9 percent of the system total, and Virginia boardings account for the remaining 14.8 percent (Figure 2-3). Ridership by jurisdiction is very similar to the 2008 Regional Bus Survey results: as a percentage of the total, ridership increased slightly in Washington, D.C. at the expense of Fairfax County.

Figure 2-3: Weekday Ridership by Residency

Source: 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey



Ridership by time of day was divided into four sections: AM peak, mid-day, PM peak, and evening. Morning and afternoon peak period ridership accounts for close to two-thirds of total weekday ridership (Table 2-1). While peak trends remain virtually identical to those reported in 2008, mid-day ridership as a percent of total ridership has decreased, whereas evening ridership has increased.

Table 2-1: Ridership by Time of Day

Source: 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey.

Time of Day Ridership Percent

AM Peak 143,804 32.0%Midday 100,143 22.3%PM Peak 147,920 32.9%Evening 57,946 12.9%

Survey Total 449,813 100.0%



2.2.2. Purpose of Metrobus Trips

Metrobus riders use the bus system for a variety of purposes. The 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey determined trip purpose by stated destination, tabulated into the following categories: work, home, shopping or eating, school, job-related business, and personal trips/sightseeing/recreation. 73 percent of Metrobus riders use the bus to travel to work or to their home, with the remaining 27 percent divided between the other four trip purposes (Figure 2-4). Note that the 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey aggregated some trip categories that were broken out in the previous survey. Overall there is no significant change in Metrobus trip purpose distribution from the 2008 survey.

Figure 2-4: Weekday Trip Purpose




2.2.3. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Metrobus Passengers – Ethnicity

Ridership on the Metrobus system reflects the diversity of the region. Riders from all socioeconomic backgrounds and ethnicities use the system daily. 57.5 percent of riders identify as African American, 18.7 percent are white, 12.5 percent are Hispanic, 4.6 percent are Asian, 4.3 percent identify as two or more races, 1.2 percent are Native American, and 1.2 percent are another race (Table 2-2). Compared to 2008, African American ridership as a percent of the system total has declined by 5 percent and white ridership has declined by almost 1 percent. At the same time, Hispanic ridership has increased by slightly more than 2 percent, while Asian, Native American, and other-race ridership have increased by less than 1 percent each.

Table 2-2: Ridership by Ethnicity


Ethnicity Ridership Percent

Black/African American 245,105 57.5%

White 79,609 18.7%Hipanic 53,073 12.5%Asian 19,535 4.6%Two or More 18,417 4.3%Native American 5,123 1.2%Other Race 5,259 1.2%

Total 426,121 100.0%



2.2.4. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Metrobus Passengers – Income Level

Metrobus serves a high proportion of low-income riders but the overall ridership spans a broad income spectrum. 50.6 percent of riders reported annual income of $30,000 or less. 17.4 percent reported income between $30,001 and $50,000 while 20.2 percent reported income between $50,001 and $100,000. 11.8 percent reported income greater than $100,000 per year (Figure 2-5). Compared to 2008, the income group earning $30,000 or less has increased by around 2.5 percent, and those earning over $100,000 has increased by slightly less than 2 percent. Income group earning between $30,001 and $50,000 has decreased by slightly less than 4 percent.

Figure 2-5: Ridership by Income Level




2.2.5. Vehicle Ownership

According to the 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey, 43 percent of Metrobus riders are choice riders. Choice riders are those people who have a vehicle available to them but choose to make a trip by bus instead of by car. Vehicle ownership for Metrobus riders is outlined in Figure 2-6.

Figure 2-6: Weekday Ridership by Vehicle Ownership




2.2.6. Mode of Egress

The 2014 Metrobus Passenger Survey used mode of egress to evaluate mode of access. Mode of egress describes how people arrive at their final destination after alighting the bus and provides equivalent statistics as mode of access on a system level. 56.9 percent of riders walked to their destination, whereas 38.7 percent transferred to another Metro service (either Metrorail or Metrobus). The remaining 10.2 percent used other mode of egress to reach their destination, as shown in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Mode of Egress


Egress Mode Percent

Walked only 56.9%Metrobus 22.7%Metrorail 16.0%Other bus service 3.9%Dropped off by someone 2.1%Drove a car and parked 1.3%Bicycle 0.7%Taxi 0.7%Rode with someone who parked 0.5%Amtrak, MARC, or VRE 0.4%Carpooled 0.4%Wheelchair 0.3%



2.3. Ridership Growth Projection

The approach used in previous fleet plans of matching service with projected demand continues in this fleet plan. This fleet plan have incorporated assumptions about ridership growth due to regional population and employment growth, with that growth matched by planned Metrobus service improvements on the Priority Corridor Network (PCN), Emerging Corridors as well as ongoing State of Good Operations (SOGO) investments.

As of FY2014, Metrobus ridership has recovered to the level of FY2009, a benchmark year prior to the financial recession which greatly impacted ridership in FY2010 and FY2011. Ridership over the last one year has declined slightly and the first quarter of FY16 has not seen any improvements. As a result ridership for FY16 is projected to remain the same as FY15, with annual increases in ridership of approximately 1 percent in subsequent years (Table 2-4).

Table 2-4: Bus Ridership: Actual and Forecast

Fiscal Year Status Bus Ridership % Change

2009 Actual 133,773,9232010 Actual 123,670,328 -8%2011 Actual 125,089,241 1%2012 Actual 132,220,196 6%2013 Actual 132,064,874 0%2014 Actual 134,407,528 2%2015 Actual 132,901,867 -1%2016 Estimate 132,901,867 0%2017 Forecast 134,230,886 1%2018 Forecast 135,573,195 1%2019 Forecast 136,928,926 1%2020 Forecast 138,298,216 1%2021 Forecast 139,681,198 1%2022 Forecast 141,078,010 1%2023 Forecast 142,488,790 1%2024 Forecast 143,913,678 1%2025 Forecast 145,352,815 1%



Figure 2-7 shows Metrobus ridership past performance and projected future trend.

Figure 2-7: Metrobus Annual Ridership Trend (FY09 – FY25)

In conclusion, bus ridership has dipped and then recovered since the 2010 plan. With continued growth in regional population and employment, as well as continued PCN, Emerging Corridors and SOGO investments, a trend growth rate of 1 percent results in approximately 145 million annual trips by FY2025.



2.4. Ridership Demand for Fleet Growth

2.4.1. Quality of Service Quality of service is what ultimately determines the success of any transit system. Metro is committed to quality of service and is taking steps to improve the system's performance.

Quality of service is key to retaining and increasing ridership, meeting customer demand and achieving Metro’s vision of moving the region forward by connecting communities and improving mobility. Quality of service is a function of service characteristics, including safety, speed, cleanliness, courtesy, frequency, service reliability and comfort. The size and quality of the Metrobus fleet directly impact most service characteristics: cleanliness, comfort, safety, speed, and service reliability.

2.4.2. Passenger Load Standard The Metrobus network is monitored regularly to balance passenger demand and fleet supply, make adjustments for traffic congestion, and ensure passenger comfort. Metro uses peak hour load factor to measure passenger demand and to determine when more buses are needed. The peak load is calculated using point-checks to determine the number of passengers at the maximum load point during the peak hour, divided by the seating capacity. For example: 200 passengers divided by 5 trips, divided by 39 seats, yields a load factor of 1.0. A load factor of 1.0 means all seats are occupied and no passenger is forced to stand. The load factor for service and vehicle adjustments adopted in the new Guideline (see section 3.1) varies by route classification and time period as shown below.

Table 2-5: Loading Standard by Line Classification and Time Period

Source: 2015 Metrobus Service Guidelines

Line Classification Peak Off-Peak and Weekend

Priority Corridor Network (PCN) 1.2 1.0Framework 1.2 1.0Local Area 1.2 1.0Commuter/Express 1.0 1.0

Load Factor



2.4.3. Ridership Driven Fleet Projection At the end of June, 2015, a total of 1,272 buses were put into service during the peak period. But this number was not a true reflection of the need for peak vehicles. Metro requires a number of additional buses, during the peak periods, to improve service reliability, reduce overcrowding and meet policy frequency standards. However, meeting this needs and requirements is constrained by lack of fleet. For FY2017 Metro service planners evaluated all the routes by looking at sufficiency of running time, reliability of service, frequency thresholds and crowding problems. Where problems were identified the need for additional peak vehicles was calculated. The result shows that, to keep up in proportion with ridership growth, improve the reliability of service and maintain the network in a State of Good Operation, Metro will need an additional 117 peak vehicles for FY2016 (Table 3-5). At the end of FY2016, a total of 1,389 buses will be needed for service during the peak period to satisfy the growth in demand. (See section 3.5, 3.7.1 and Table 3.10 for more details).



SECTION THREE: NETWORK DEMAND FOR FLEET GROWTH

Fleet growth over the next decade is driven by ridership growth, passenger demand for service quality, as well as continuous service improvements and network expansion to the existing Metrobus system. This section provides the fleet growth demand of the 2017 Metrobus Fleet Plan. An estimate of the fleet requirement is made based on the level of demand. There is a growing gap between supply and demand for the bus fleet that keeps widening over the timeframe of this plan. Metro fleet growth has not kept up with the demand for service provision and Metrobus has been coping with a shortage of expansion buses by delaying or limiting needed service improvements.

The primary conclusions of this chapter are as follows:

• Metro has a current need for 117 additional buses to serve weekday peak period service, resulting in a total peak PVR fleet size of 1,389 buses

• Several Metrobus routes have a demand for buses higher than those currently supplied/scheduled, resulting in an increase in the Schedule PVR by 117 buses

• The 15.6% spare bus ratio is unable to support the various needs for which the spare buses are intended

• This fleet plan recommends increasing the spare ratio to 18.5% • The implementation of the Priority Corridor Network (PCN) will require an increase in

the Schedule PVR by an additional 147 buses by 2025 • The implementation of the Emerging Corridors will require an increase in the

Schedule PVR by an additional 87 buses by 2025 • Total PVR will increase from 1,500 in FY15 to 2,068 by the end of FY25 a net

increase of 568

3.1. Network Characteristics

Traditionally, Metro classified lines and routes in the Metrobus network into five categories based on geographical characteristics of individual service areas: radial line haul, other urban, other suburban, express and small bus (30 foot or less).

More recently Metro has undertaken a Metrobus Service Guidelines (Guideline) study to provide a consistent technical guidance for service planners in evaluating and planning services. The Guideline classifies Metrobus services into four categories, listed below. Each category has different standards for peak and off-peak service.



3.1.1 Priority Corridor Network (PCN)

The Priority Corridor Network (PCN) is a WMATA Board-approved program that identifies specific Metrobus service with significant regional importance. There are 24 corridors included in the PCN category.

3.1.2 Framework Service

Framework services are defined as local bus lines that provide direct alignments following key arterial corridors. Framework services also include potential future limited stop Metrobus services. Radial, crosstown and emerging corridor services are included in this category.

3.1.3 Local Area Service

The services under this category operate within neighborhoods, connecting to a nearby major generator such as a Metrorail station. Circulating in local neighborhoods and connecting to nearby generators is the main focus of services under this category.

3.1.4 Commuter/Express Service

The services under this category are defined to operate between a residential area or park-and-ride and a business district or Metrorail station, or between a central business district and a peripheral employment area. These services have a limited number of stops in the catchment/distribution area before operating non-stop to/from the ridership generator. Peak direction services connecting park and rides or neighborhoods to major employment center, reverse commute services operating from central areas to suburban employment centers and airport services fall under this category.

The majority of Metrobus service is demand driven, which requires monitoring and matching of the fleet supply to the demand. During the peak periods, Metro maximizes fleet sizes and types to meet passenger demand and ensure passenger comfort. The rest of Metrobus service is policy driven, which is established by policy that a minimum level of service be provided even though the ridership does not justify the level of service provided. Policy driven services typically include night and weekend services with light ridership or new initiatives as demand develops.

The network today is facing both opportunities and challenges. Passenger demand has been increasing; however traffic congestion on urban arterials in the Washington DC region is also on the rise, directly impacting bus operations and passengers. The result has been increasing



crowding, bus bunching and degrading on-time performance. Metro planners adjust service and corresponding fleet on a routine basis to cope with today’s operations environment. Metro has gradually introduced bus network enhancement initiatives by making fundamental changes to service structures through the Priority Corridor Network (PCN) and Emerging Corridors. The State of Good Operations (SOGO) is also used to maintain and improve service operations and reliability. The PCN, Emerging Corridors and SOGO’s are described together with their associated fleet requirements in Section 3.5 – 3.7.

3.2. Performance and Fleet Requirements

For the existing network, Metro’s service planners regularly monitor its performance and make service adjustments to address system deficiencies and enhance efficiency. To accommodate increasing traffic congestion without compromising quality of service, many service adjustment measures require increasing the number of buses for lines and routes.

The previous fleet plan update used slightly different performance and design measures to assess service performance and fleet needs. The 2015 fleet plan uses the new Service Guideline for evaluating services. The Guideline provided a revised performance measures and target values for reviewing operations and monitor service for the bus network as a whole. The Guideline has modified the thresholds for some of the key performance indicators used for reviewing operations and monitoring services.

Productivity, reliability and level of crowding are the three key performance measures used by Metro. Productivity measures how effectively the resources devoted to route operations are used, typically by calculating the number of boardings per hour, per mile, or per trip. Lines that have high productivity, carrying a relatively large amount of boardings per unit of service, are candidates for service expansion, which would increase the number of peak vehicles required. Reliability is a critical service quality measure for customers, reflecting customers’ expectation for on-time bus arrival and on-time completion of a bus trip. Bus lines with poor travel time reliability, particularly ones whose travel time is longer than the scheduled travel time, may require additional vehicles in service to meet the schedule. Level of crowding is another service quality measure from a customer’s perspective. Lines that experience regular overcrowding require additional capacity, resulting in more buses.



3.2.1. Productivity

Previously uniform productivity thresholds were applied across different class of services. The new Guideline applies different thresholds for different line classifications and for services that operate late in the night. Five different thresholds are used to measure service productivity: Cost Recovery Ratio, Subsidy Per Passenger, Passenger Per Hour (replaces the previous threshold of Average Daily Passenger), Passenger Per Revenue Mile, and Passenger Per Revenue Trip. Metrobus defines productivity failure as a line or route that fails one or more of the minimum thresholds. Performance is reviewed and updated every year by WMATA service planners as part of the regular service reviewing process. Table 3-1 and 3-2 below shows minimum productivity thresholds, developed as part of the Metrobus Service Guidelines.

Table 3-1: Metrobus Minimum Productivity Thresholds

Table 3-2 shows the productivity thresholds for late night services (11PM - 4AM).

Table 3-2: Late Night Service Productivity Thresholds

Classification Cost Recovery Ratio

Subsidy Per Passenger

Passenger Per Hour

Passenger Per Revenue Mile

Passenger Per Revenue Trip

PCN 30% $2.5 35 4.0 35Framework 25% $3.0 30 3.0 25Local Area 25% $4.0 25 5.0 15Commuter Express 25% $5.0 20 1.5 19Source: Metrobus Service Guidelines, June 2015

Classification Cost Recovery Ratio

Subsidy Per Passenger

Passenger Per Hour

Passenger Per Revenue Mile

Passenger Per Revenue Trip

PCN 20% $5.0 20 2.00 15Framework 20% $6.0 15 1.50 10Local Area 15% $9.0 15 1.50 10Commuter Express 25% $8.0 12 0.33 10Source: Metrobus Service Guidelines, June 2015



3.2.2. Reliability

Reliability of travel time is defined by the difference between actual travel time and scheduled travel time. The new Guideline hasn’t changed the “on-time” performance threshold. Lines are considered to have poor reliability if they don’t meet the on-time performance standards, departing from the time point more than two minutes early or seven minutes late from the scheduled departure time. The standard applies for all Metrobus Line Classifications.

The Guideline included a headway separation threshold to monitor service reliability for routes that are headway managed. Headway separation is measured by the deviation of the scheduled time between buses operating in the same direction on a route and the actual time between buses. The Guideline indicates that headway separation should not be greater than (or less than) 5 percent at a scheduled time point for all Metrobus Line Classifications. This will provide an indication of when “bus bunching” (i.e., trips operating too closely together) may be regularly recurring. For example, if a route is scheduled to have a 30 minute frequency (i.e., interval between buses), then two buses at a scheduled time point should depart the time point between 28.5 minutes and 31.5 minutes apart in order to satisfy the intent of this guideline.

Planners regularly assess if routes have adequate travel time. The criteria used to determine adequacy of travel time is based on the assumption that routes fail the reliability thresholds if, on average, 21 percent of the trips are late by more than seven minutes and headway separation is more than 5 percent of the scheduled time. To improve reliability Metro’s service planners use a number of operational strategies such as, monitoring the service by Service Operation Managers, adding running time, reducing trip length and adding buses.

3.2.3. Level of Crowding

Vehicle load factor is a performance measure used to determine crowding on a particular bus line. The load factor is the number of people on the bus at the maximum load point divided by the number of seats. The load factor for service and vehicle adjustments adopted in the new Guideline varies by route classification and time periods. (See Section 2.4.2).

Passenger crowding is a component of service quality that receives much attention from Metro planners. They continuously monitor passenger feedback on this issue and regularly review data to determine the degree of crowding throughout the system. Lines that have a relatively large amount of boardings per unit of service, are candidates for service expansion. Lines that experience regular overcrowding require additional capacity, resulting in more buses. When



reductions are made to poorly performing routes, those resources can be reallocated to lines that are experiencing crowded conditions.

3.3. Service Design Measures

Service frequency is used as the primary service design measurer, together with span of service and duplication of service. Service frequency or headway, is the service interval between buses on a particular bus route. The previous fleet plan used two service classifications for recommending frequency thresholds. The new Guideline provides the threshold for all service classifications, by line and branch as well as by time of day and day type. The Guideline used the maximum service interval, or headway, as the measure of service frequency thresholds.

The Guideline states that in general Metrobus service intervals should not exceed 30 minutes during the peak period and 60 minutes during the off-peak periods. Other design measures, such as accessibility, number of stops, and location of stops along each route, are additional measures that have not been incorporated in this plan. Metro’s recommended frequency thresholds are illustrated in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Frequency of Service Threshold

Source: Metrobus Service Guidelines, June 2015

PCN Framework Local Area Commuter Express

Line Level 10 20 15 20Branch Level 15 30 30 30

Line Level 15 30 60 60Branch Level 30 60 60 60

Line Level 20 60 60 60Branch Level 30 60 60 60Late Night Service (11 PM - 4 AM) 60 60 60 60

Day TypeMinimum Frequency (Minutes)

Weekday - Peak

Weekday - Off- Peak

Weekend



Service frequency determines the number of buses needed for operations, thus having a direct impact on fleet size particularly during peak periods. For the demand-driven routes carrying high ridership, frequency is determined by the number of vehicles required to accommodate the demand. For policy driven routes with lower ridership, frequency is based on corresponding service policies.

3.4 Summary of Network Performance and Fleet Requirements

As of June 21, 2015, Metrobus’ Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) for weekday roll-out was 1,300 buses. With a spare ratio of 15.6 percent, this results in a total fleet size of 1,500 buses.

Table 3-4 presents the calculation of the current PVR by bus division as of June 21, 2015, and the system total. PVR is calculated on the division level because many routes require a different number of buses in the AM and PM peak period service. When different routes with different AM and PM bus requirements are housed in the same bus division, buses that serve one route in the AM peak can be repurposed to serve another route in the PM peak. Balancing the supply and demand of buses at the division level reduces the actual total number of buses required to maintain an adequate level of revenue service.

Table 3-4: Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) by Division (June 21, 2015)

The “Schedule PVR” column shows the peak vehicle requirement for scheduled buses per operating division, which is the greater of the AM or PM peak vehicle requirement. The “Total

Division AM Peak PM Peak Schedule PVR

Strategic Fleet

Headway Mgmt.

Total PVR Spares Total

FleetBladensburg 214 213 214 3 1 218 34 252Shepherd Pkwy [1] 182 183 183 2 1 186 27 214Southern Ave 66 65 66 1 0 67 10 76Landover [1] 130 143 143 3 0 146 23 169Four Mile Run 184 183 184 3 2 189 29 218West Ox 82 82 82 1 0 83 13 96Montgomery 162 173 173 5 0 178 28 206Northern 125 117 125 1 4 130 20 150Western 102 95 102 1 0 103 16 119

System Total 1247 1254 1272 [2] 20 8 1300 200 1500

[1] 6 high back vehicles from Landover and 13 branded buses for Metrow ay from Shepherd Parkw ay are not included in the spare ratio.

[2] Total Schedule PVR is the sum of the individual division requirements, w hich are based on the maximum of the AM and PM peak requirements



PVR” column is the sum of the “Schedule PVR,” “Strategic Fleet,” and “Headway Management” columns (strategic fleet and headway management buses are defined in Section 3.7.2 below). Total PVR is the total number of buses necessary to operate service on a given day; this includes strategic fleet and headway management buses, which provide operational redundancy to assist in schedule/headway adherence. Finally, the “Total Fleet” column represents the required fleet size necessary to supply the service and is the sum of the scheduled buses, operationally required buses and spares.

Table 3-5 below presents a summary of how each Metrobus line fares with respect to the adequacy of vehicle requirements based on WMATA service evaluation measures. A “Yes” indicates that the line has sufficient fleet to provide the service that matches ridership demand. A “No” indicates that the line requires additional vehicles to be able to provide the service that matches ridership demand. If a “No” is shown, the table indicates the number of additional vehicles required to achieve adequate levels of service.

The assessment of fleet sufficiency is a function of evaluation measures: adequate travel time, frequency, and crowding. This fleet plan has used thresholds set out in the new Guidelines, assessments involving ridership and traffic checks, and professional judgment from service planners and corridor planners.



Table 3-5: Scheduled Peak Vehicle Requirement by Line



Table 3-5: Continued

AM PM AM PM AM PM9A Huntington - Pentagon PCN Yes 3 3 3 3A2,6,7,8,42-48 Anacostia - Congress Heights PCN Yes 17 22 17 22A4, W5 Anacostia - Fort Drum PCN Yes 10 11 10 11A9 M. L. King Jr. Ave Limited PCN Yes 6 5 6 5C2,4 Greenbelt - Twinbrook PCN No 18 21 1 2 19 23F4 New Carrollton - Silver Spring PCN No 11 13 1 1 12 14F6 New Carrollton - Fort Totten PCN No 5 6 5 6 10 12G8 Rhode Island Ave PCN No 12 10 2 2 14 12J1,2,3 Bethesda - Silver Spring PCN No 14 19 1 1 15 20J4 College Park - Bethesda Limited PCN Yes 6 7 6 7K6 New Hampshire Ave - Maryland PCN No 9 10 1 1 10 11K9 New Hampshire Ave - MD Limited PCN Yes 6 6 6 6MW1 Metroway - Potomac Yard PCN Yes 7 7 7 7NH1 National Harbor PCN No 3 3 3 3 6 6P12 Eastover - Addison Rd PCN No 7 10 4 5 11 15Q1,2,4,5,6 Veirs Mill Rd PCN Yes 15 16 15 16REX (R99) Richmond Hwy Express PCN No 11 13 1 1 12 14S1 16th St - Potomac Park PCN Yes 15 5 15 5S2,4 16th St PCN No 28 30 1 1 29 31S9 16th St Limited PCN No 12 13 3 2 15 15

Total Fleet DemandLine Line Name Classification Adequacy

of Fleet

Current Peak Buses

(21 June 15)

Need for Additional Peak

Vehicles




AM PM AM PM AM PMT18 Annapolis Rd PCN No 8 7 2 2 10 9X1,3 Benning Rd PCN Yes 9 8 9 8X2 Benning Rd - H St PCN Yes 12 13 12 13X9 Benning Rd - H St Limited PCN No 6 7 2 2 8 9Y2,7,8 Georgia Ave - Maryland PCN No 14 16 2 3 16 19Z2 Colesville - Ashton PCN Yes 2 6 2 6Z6 Calverton - Westfarm PCN No 7 5 0 1 7 6Z8 Fairland PCN No 8 9 1 1 9 1042, 43 Mount Pleasant Framework No 17 16 1 1 18 1760, 64 Fort Totten - Petworth Framework No 12 7 2 2 14 962, 63 Takoma - Petworth Framework No 10 13 1 0 11 1389, 89M Laurel Framework Yes 3 3 3 394 Stanton Rd Framework Yes 3 3 3 396, 97 East Capitol St - Cardozo Framework No 15 13 1 1 16 141A,B,E,Z Wilson Blvd - Vienna Framework Yes 11 10 11 101C Fair Oaks - Fairfax Blvd Framework No 8 8 2 2 10 1010A,E,R,S Hunting Point - Pentagon Framework Yes 10 4 10 410B Hunting Point - Ballston Framework Yes 2 10 2 1015K,L Chain Bridge Rd Framework No 4 3 1 0 5 315M George Mason Univ - Tysons Corner Framework Yes 4 4 4 4

Line Line Name Classification Adequacy of Fleet

Current Peak Buses

(21 June 15)


Vehicles

Total Fleet Demand




AM PM AM PM AM PM2A Washington Blvd - Dunn Loring Framework Yes 7 8 7 82B Fair Oaks - Jermantown Rd Framework No 5 6 1 1 6 72T Tysons Corner - Dunn Loring Framework Yes 0 0 0 022A,B,C,F Barcroft - South Fairlington Framework Yes 10 10 10 1023A,B,T McLean - Crystal City Framework No 11 12 1 1 12 1325B Landmark - Ballston Framework Yes 7 9 7 926A Annandale - East Falls Church Framework No 2 3 2 2 4 53A Lee Hwy - Falls Church Framework Yes 8 10 8 103T Pimmit Hills - Falls Church Framework Yes 5 5 5 53Y Lee Hwy - Farragut Square Framework No 3 3 1 1 4 438B Ballston - Farragut Square Framework Yes 9 12 9 124A,B Pershing Dr - Arlington Blvd Framework Yes 9 9 9 97A,F,Y Lincolnia - North Fairlington Framework Yes 14 11 14 11A12 Martin Luther King Jr Hwy Framework No 6 11 1 2 7 13B2 Bladensburg Rd - Anacostia Framework No 18 15 2 2 20 17B24,25 Bowie - Belair Framework Yes 3 2 3 2C12,14 Hillcrest Heights Framework No 3 3 3 3 6 6C21,22,26,29 Central Ave Framework No 7 6 2 2 9 8C8 College Park - White Flint Framework Yes 6 6 6 6D1 Glover Park - Federal Triangle Framework Yes 1 1 1 1


Vehicles


of Fleet

Current Peak Buses

(21 June 15)




AM PM AM PM AM PMD2 Glover Park - Dupont Circle Framework Yes 5 5 5 5D3 Ivy City - Dupont Circle Framework Yes 7 5 (7) (5) 0 0D4 Ivy City - Franklin Square Framework No 4 4 2 2 6 6D5 MacArthur Blvd - Georgetown Framework Yes 3 3 3 3D6 Sibley Hospital - Stadium Armory Framework Yes 16 17 16 17D8 Hospital Center Framework Yes 8 10 8 10D12,13,14 Oxon Hill - Suitland Framework Yes 15 12 15 12E2 Ivy City - Fort Totten Framework No 2 2 1 1 3 3E4 Military Rd - Crosstown Framework No 13 10 2 2 15 12F1,2 Chillum Rd Framework No 5 6 4 5 9 11F8 Langley Park-Cheverly Framework No 5 5 5 5 10 10F12 Ardwick Industrial Park Shuttle Framework No 5 4 5 4 10 8F13 Cheverly - Washington Business Pk Framework No 2 2 2 2 4 4F14 Sheriff Rd - Capitol Heights Framework No 6 6 6 6 12 12G2 P St - Ledroit Park Framework Yes 7 6 7 6G12,13,14,16 Greenbelt - New Carrollton Framework Yes 8 11 8 11H1 Brookland - Potomac Park Framework No 5 3 1 1 6 4H2,3,4 Crosstown Framework No 14 14 4 4 18 18H8,9 Park Rd - Brookland Framework No 8 8 1 1 9 9H11,12,13 Marlow Heights - Temple Hills Framework Yes 5 6 5 6

Total Fleet Demand

Current Peak Buses

(21 June 15)


VehiclesLine Name Classification Adequacy of FleetLine




AM PM AM PM AM PMJ11,12,13 Marlboro Pike Framework No 3 4 3 4 6 8K11,12,13 Forestville Framework No 5 5 2 2 7 7L1,2 Connecticut Ave Framework Yes 15 15 15 15L8 Connecticut Ave - Maryland Framework No 8 6 1 1 9 7N2,3,4,6 Massachusetts Ave Framework Yes 14 14 (3) (2) 11 12P6 Anacostia - Eckington Framework Yes 10 9 10 9R1,2 Riggs Road Framework No 5 9 1 1 6 10R4 Queen Chapel Rd Framework No 3 4 1 1 4 5R11,12 Kenilworth Ave Framework No 4 5 2 2 6 7T2 River Rd Framework Yes 7 7 7 7T14 R.I. Ave - New Carrollton Framework No 5 5 1 1 6 6V2,4 Minnesota Ave - M St Framework Yes 14 14 14 14V12 District Heights - Suitland Framework Yes 4 4 4 4V14,15 District Heights - Seat Pleasant Framework No 6 5 2 2 8 7W4 Deanwood - Alabama Ave Framework No 13 12 2 2 15 14W9 South Capitol St Limited Framework Yes 2 2 2 2X8 Maryland Ave Framework Yes 3 2 3 27M Mark Center - Pentagon Local Yes 2 2 2 2E6 Chevy Chase Local Yes 2 2 2 2H6 Brookland - Ft Lincoln Local Yes 4 4 4 4

Current Peak Buses

(21 June 15)


Vehicles


of Fleet




AM PM AM PM AM PMK2 Takoma - Fort Totten Local No 2 2 1 0 3 2M4 Nebraska Ave Local Yes 6 3 6 3M6 Fairfax Village Local Yes 3 4 3 4R3 Greenbelt - Prince George's Plaza Local Yes 2 2 (2) (2) 0 0U4 Sheriff Rd - River Terrace Local Yes 3 3 3 3U5,6 Mayfair - Marshall Hts Local Yes 5 5 5 5U7 Deanwood - Minnesota Ave Local Yes 2 2 2 2U8 Benning Heights Local No 4 4 3 3 7 7W1 Shipley Terrace - Fort Drum Local Yes 5 4 5 4W2,3 United Medical Ctr - Anacostia Local Yes 9 10 9 10W6,8 Garfield - Anacostia Loop Local Yes 8 6 8 6Tags (S80,91) Springfield Circulator Local Yes 4 4 4 487 Laurel Express Comm./Express No 4 4 1 1 5 511Y Mount Vernon Express Comm./Express No 7 5 1 1 8 613Y Arlington - Union Station Comm./Express Yes 0 0 0 017A,B,F,M Kings Park Comm./Express No 4 8 1 1 5 917G,H,K,L Kings Park Express Comm./Express No 14 15 1 1 15 1618E,F Springfield Comm./Express Yes 3 3 3 318G,H,J Orange Hunt Comm./Express Yes 6 5 6 518P,R,S Burke Centre Comm./Express No 8 12 1 1 9 13


Vehicles

Total Fleet Demand

Current Peak Buses

(21 June 15)Line Line Name Classification Adequacy of Fleet




AM PM AM PM AM PM21A,D Landmark - Pentagon Comm./Express Yes 3 3 3 328F,G Skyline City Comm./Express Yes 3 3 3 329C,G Annandale Comm./Express Yes 5 6 5 629W Braeburn Dr - Pentagon Express Comm./Express Yes 3 3 3 35A DC - Dulles Comm./Express Yes 5 5 5 57C,H,P,W,X Lincolnia - Park Center - Pentagon Comm./Express Yes 12 10 12 108S,W,Z Foxchase - Seminary Valley Comm./Express Yes 8 7 8 7B21,22 Bowie State University Comm./Express Yes 2 3 2 3B27 Bowie - New Carrollton Comm./Express Yes 2 2 2 2B29,31 Crofton - New Carrollton Comm./Express No 2 2 2 2 4 4B30 Greenbelt - BWI Airport Express Comm./Express Yes 3 3 3 3C11,13 Clinton Comm./Express Yes 3 3 3 3C28 Pointer Ridge Comm./Express Yes 3 2 3 2J5 Twinbrook - Silver Spring Comm./Express Yes 3 3 3 3J7,9 I-270 Express Comm./Express Yes 5 6 5 6P17,18,19 Oxon Hill - Fort Washington Comm./Express Yes 12 13 12 13V1 Benning Heights - M St Comm./Express Yes 4 4 4 4V5 Fairfax Village - L'Enfant Plaza Comm./Express Yes 4 3 4 3W13,14 Bock Rd Comm./Express Yes 7 7 7 7W19 Indian Head Express Comm./Express Yes 6 5 6 5

Classification Adequacy of Fleet

Current Peak Buses

(21 June 15)


Vehicles

Total Fleet DemandLine Line Name




AM PM AM PM AM PMZ11,13 Greencastle - Briggs Chaney Exp Comm./Express Yes 11 6 11 6Z9,29 Laurel - Burtonsville Express Comm./Express Yes 6 5 6 5Strategic Buses 17 23 17 23Headway Management 8 8 8 8School Buses No 15 2 1 1 16 3Operator Shuttles 10 9 10 9

1272 1285 110 117 1382 1402


Vehicles


of Fleet

Current Peak Buses

(21 June 15)

TOTAL



3.5. Priority Corridor Network and Fleet Requirements

Since the previous fleet plan update the study process for the PCN has been completed and implementation is still ongoing. As the timeframe for the first phase of PCN improvements nears an end (2016), Metro has started the study process for the enhancements for the next tier of bus services dubbed the Emerging Corridor Network. The PCN implementation and Emerging Corridors improvements are primary strategies for enhancing and improving the provision of bus services, reducing operating costs and increasing reliability.

3.5.1 PCN Routes and Implementation

All studies related to the Priority Corridor Network have been completed. Table 3-6 shows the list of PCN lines and ridership trends. Since FY11 ridership on the PCN corridors has increased by 8 percent, compared to an average system-wide increase of 6 percent. The previous fleet plan update estimated that the PCN requires an additional 134 peak vehicles and implementation will be completed by FY16. This fleet plan revised the PVR need from 134 to 147 and the timeframe of implementation is extended up to FY25. Table 3-7 shows the current PVR, additional PVR required and implementation schedule of the PCN.

3.6 Emerging Corridors and Fleet Requirements

With the completion of the PCN studies Metro has started putting together an investment plan for the Emerging Corridors. The Emerging Corridors are defined as the most productive Framework services which are not part of the PCN. Emerging Corridors are selected based on a number of factors such as frequency, span, farebox recovery, boardings per hour and service design. The Emerging Corridors are targeted to serve part of the region with high ridership growth potential, based on recent trends, and to serve the growing need of communities with transit friendly Life style.

Eighteen corridors are selected to be part of the Emerging Corridors. The Emerging Corridors incorporate 28 Metrobus Lines and account for 23 percent of the total Metrobus ridership. Between FY11 and FY15, ridership in these corridors have shown a 13 percent increase which is more than twice the rate of growth achieved by the Metrobus network.

The Emerging Corridors share many similar characteristics of the PCN. These corridors have significant ridership growth that is expected to continue and similar capacity and performance issues as the PCN network. The Emerging Corridors will require a comparable level of service, and facility improvements as well as investments as the PCN. In the previous fleet plan update



it was anticipated that during the timeframe of FY17 – FY27 a total of 105 peak buses would be required to address the fleet requirements of the Emerging Corridors. Due to the refinement of the corridors included in the Emerging Corridors, this fleet plan revised down the fleet requirement to 87 buses. Table 3-8 shows the list of the Emerging Corridors and the annual ridership trends and Table 3-9 shows the average weekday ridership, existing PVR, additional vehicle requirements and study schedules.



Table 3-6: Priority Corridor Network Ridership Trend

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

1 Georgia Avenue / 7th Street 70, 74, 79 5.50 5.90 6.02 6.37 6.51 20.4%2 Wisconsin Avenue / Pennsylvania Avenue 30N, 30S, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36 5.80 6.20 6.32 6.50 6.45 16.0%3 16th Street S1, S2, S4, S9 5.40 5.80 5.97 6.03 5.80 16.7%4 H Street / Benning Road X1, X2, X3, X9 4.10 4.70 4.61 4.78 4.92 25.9%5 Anacostia / Congress Heights A2, A6, A7, A8, A42, A46, A48; A4, A9, W5, 4.60 4.60 4.37 4.52 4.41 -0.5%6 14th Street 52, 53, 54 4.30 4.60 4.76 4.88 4.69 15.8%7 U Street / Garfield 90, 92, 93 3.90 3.80 3.83 3.88 3.80 -9.2%8 North Capitol Street 80 2.10 2.20 2.17 2.17 2.04 -3.9%9 Rhode Island Avenue (DC) G8 1.00 1.10 1.17 1.18 1.16 18.4%

36.70 38.90 39.23 40.31 39.78 11.7%

10 University Boulevard / East-West Highway J1, J2, J3, J4 2.10 2.20 2.27 2.31 2.20 15.6%11 Southern Avenue Metro / National Harbor NH1,3 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.28 33.5%12 New Hampshire Avenue K6,9 1.90 1.90 2.04 2.25 2.31 25.6%13 Georgia Avenue (MD) Y2, Y7, Y8 2.30 2.40 2.52 2.62 2.68 21.1%14 Veirs Mill Road Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6 2.70 2.80 2.87 2.94 2.78 1.7%15 East-West Highway (Prince Georges) F4, F6 2.20 2.30 2.55 2.66 2.68 29.3%16 Greenbelt / Twinbrook C2, C4 3.40 3.60 3.71 3.74 3.62 4.1%17 Rhode Island Avenue Metro 81, 82, 83, 83X, 86, T14, T18 1.60 1.80 1.78 1.72 1.72 4.4%18 Eastover / Addison Road P12 1.70 1.90 1.82 1.91 1.98 16.5%19 Colesville Road / Columbia Z2, Z6, Z8, Z9, Z29, Z11, Z13 2.40 2.60 2.53 2.53 2.43 -0.1%

20.50 21.70 22.34 22.95 22.67 12.1%

20 Richmond Highway Express (REX) REX 1.00 1.10 1.03 1.02 0.97 -2.6%

21 Columbia Pike (Pike Ride) 16A, 16B, 16E, 16J, 16P; 16G, 16H, 16K; 16L, 16X,16Y 3.60 3.70 3.53 3.73 3.74 3.9%

22 Crystal City / Potomac Yard 9A, MW1 0.90 0.90 0.79 0.77 0.79 -12.4%23 Leesburg Pike 28A, 28X, 28F, 28G 2.00 2.10 2.03 2.17 2.06 3.1%24 Little River Turnpike / Duke Street 29C, 29G; 29K, 29N 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.89 1.02 13.3%

8.40 8.70 8.29 8.58 8.59 2.2%65.60 69.30 69.86 71.84 71.03 8.3%

District of Columbia

Maryland

Virginia

Corridor RoutesFY10-15 Change

Annual Ridership (millions)

Sub-Total

Sub-Total

Sub-TotalTotal



Table 3-7: Priority Corridor Network PVR Need and Implementation Schedule

Corridor Metrobus Routes Current PVR, (June 2015)

Additional PVR

Implement. Year

1 Greenbelt / Twinbrook C2, C4 21 11 20172 Leesburg Pike 28A, 28X, 28F, 28G 23 1 20173 16th Street S1, S2, S4, S9 55 8 2017-20184 H Street / Benning Road X1, X2, X3, X9 28 6 20185 East-West Highway (Prince Georges) F4, F6 19 1 20186 Little River Turnpike / Duke Street 29C, 29G; 29K, 29N 12 11 2018/20207 14th Street 52, 53, 54 24 11 20198 Richmond Highway Express (REX) REX 13 3 20199 New Hampshire Avenue K6,9 16 2 2020

10 University Blvd. / East-West Highway J1, J2, J3, J4 26 5 202011 Veirs Mill Road Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6 16 9 202112 Anacostia / Congress Heights A2, A6, A7, A8, A42, A46, A48; A4, A9, W5, W9 40 8 2020-202113 Columbia Pike (Pike Ride) 16A, 16B, 16E, 16J, 16P; 16G, 16H, 16K; 16L, 16X, 16Y 41 3 202114 Wisconsin Ave./ Pennsylvania Ave. 30N, 30S, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39 57 12 2021-202215 Colesville Road / Columbia Z2, Z6, Z8, Z9, Z29, Z11, Z13 34 11 2021-202216 Georgia Avenue (MD) Y2, Y7, Y8 16 5 202217 U Street / Garfield 90, 92, 93 27 9 202318 Eastover / Addison Road P12 10 6 202319 North Capitol Street 80 17 9 202420 Southern Ave. Metro / National Harbor NH1,3 3 3 202421 Rhode Island Avenue (DC) G8 12 5 202522 Rhode Island Avenue Metro 81, 82, 83, 86, T14, T18 25 8 2025

Total 535 147



Table 3-8: List of Emerging Corridors Ridership Trend

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Takoma - Fort Totten-Petworth 62, 63; 60, 64 2.17 2.40 2.54 2.67 2.62 21%Connecticut Avenue L1, L2 1.03 1.09 1.35 1.49 1.53 48%Mount Pleasant 42, 43 2.35 2.35 2.17 2.25 2.20 -7%Crosstown/Brookland - Potomac Pk H1, H2, H3, H4 2.02 2.30 2.25 2.23 2.15 6%Bladensburg Road - Anacostia B2 2.05 2.16 2.09 2.24 2.30 12%East Capitol Street - Cardozo 96, 97 1.43 1.44 1.56 1.74 1.78 25%Military Road - Crosstown E4 1.82 2.01 1.97 1.98 2.00 10%Benning Hgt. - Deanwood - Alabama Ave. U8; W4 3.05 3.16 3.18 3.37 3.41 12%Capitol Hgt. - Minnesota Ave - Benning Hgt. - M St. V1; V2, V4 1.71 1.90 1.83 1.88 1.88 10%

Forestville K11, K12, K13 0.55 0.61 0.61 0.58 0.59 6%Laurel/Laurel Express 87, 89, 89M 0.37 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.41 10%Riggs Road R1, R2 0.85 0.96 1.01 1.04 1.04 23%Greenbelt - New Carrollton G12, G13, G14, G16 0.61 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.84 39%Oxon Hill - Suitland D12, D13, D14 1.31 1.42 1.44 1.43 1.41 8%

Wilson Boulevard - Fair Oaks 1A, 1B, 1E, 1Z; 1C 1.42 1.45 1.36 1.41 1.48 4%Washington Boulevard - Fair Oaks 2A, 2B 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.03 9%Tysons Corner - Shirlington - Crystal City 23A, 23B, 23T; 10B 1.81 1.87 1.88 1.97 1.82 1%Lincolnia - Beauregard - Pentagon 7A, 7F, 7Y; 7C, 7H, 7P, 7W, 7X; 7M 1.15 1.66 1.74 1.68 1.69 47%

26.64 29.04 29.22 30.15 30.19 13%

Maryland

Virginia

Total

District of ColumbiaCorridor Routes

Annual Ridership (millions) FY11-15 Change



Table 3-9: Emerging Corridors Average Weekday Ridership, PVR Need and Implementation Schedule

Additional PVR

Required

Study Schedule

AM PM

1 Takoma - Fort Totten-Petworth 62, 63; 60, 64 8,992 22 20 15 Under Study2 Connecticut Avenue L1, L2 5,137 15 15 2 20173 Mount Pleasant 42, 43 7,296 17 16 3 20184 Crosstown/Brookland - Potomac Pk H1; H2, H3, H4 7,141 19 17 6 20195 Bladensburg Road - Anacostia B2 7,603 18 15 3 20206 East Capitol Street - Cardozo 96,97 5,909 15 13 4 20217 Military Road - Crosstown E4 6,442 13 10 1 20218 Benning Hgt. - Deanwood - Alabama Ave. U8; W4 10,788 17 16 10 20229 Capitol Hgt. - Minnesota Ave - Benning Hgt. - M St. V1; V2, V4 6,374 18 18 6 2022

10 Forestville K11, K12, K13 1,986 5 5 2 201611 Laurel/Laurel Express 87; 89, 89M 1,627 7 7 4 201712 Riggs Road R1, R2 3,619 5 9 4 201813 Greenbelt - New Carrollton G12, G13, G14, G16 3,016 8 11 5 201914 Oxon Hill - Suitland D12, D13, D14 4,588 15 12 5 2020

15 Wilson Boulevard - Fair Oaks 1A, 1B, 1E, 1Z; 1C 4,715 19 18 4 201616 Washington Boulevard - Fair Oaks 2A; 2B 3,555 12 14 5 201717 Tysons Corner - Shirlington - Crystal City 23A, 23B, 23T; 10B 5,871 13 22 4 201818 Lincolnia - Beauregard - Pentagon 7A, 7F, 7Y; 7C, 7H, 7P, 7W, 7X; 7M 6,368 28 23 4 2019

101,027 266 261 87Total

Average Weekday Ridership (FY2015)

Peak Vehicle Requirement

(Jun'15)

District of Columbia

Maryland

Virginia

No. Line Name Routes



3.7 Other Fleet Requirements

3.7.1 State of Good Operations Service Adjustments

Every year Metro performs State of Good Operations (SOGO) planning by making a systematic analysis of all services to ascertain operational efficiency and improve service provision. This results in SOGO service adjustment buses used for minor service adjustments, changes to improve crowding, and service reliability. For FY16, as shown on Table 3-5, there is a need for 110 buses in the AM Peak and 117 buses in the PM Peak periods to improve service reliability, meet policy frequency and provide capacity for overcrowded lines. From FY17 to FY25 it is assumed that each year a 1% growth in the base fleet will be required to accommodate for SOGO service adjustments. During the timeframe of FY16 – FY27 a total of 240 peak buses would be required to address the service adjustment fleet needs for SOGO.

3.7.2 Conversion of Standard Buses to Articulated Buses

During the FY16 to FY25 period 114 articulated buses are planned to be purchased for replacing older vehicles and to expand articulated bus services. Out of the 114 articulated buses, 70 will be used for conversion of standard buses to articulated service on lines that operate in high ridership corridors. The remaining 44 articulated buses will be used to replace the 2003 Neoplan and 2008 NABI buses.

As indicated in previous fleet plans Metro had planned to convert routes that use standard buses to articulated buses on corridors with high ridership. Previous fleet plans also showed that conversion of standard bus to articulated buses will result in a reduction of the fleet size. This fleet plan assumes that conversion of standard bus to Artic buses will be on a one to one basis and will not result in a reduction of fleet size. The main reason for making a one to one conversion is to accommodate for future growth in ridership demand and maintain a similar level of service frequency provided by the standard buses.

To make the conversion cost effective, these additional Artic buses will have to be hosted by garage facilities located in the core transit market that need articulated buses, in particular the Northern and Western garages. While Western garage doesn’t have the facility for Artic buses, Northern has only two designated maintenance bay for Artic buses. However, the Artic fleet required in the core service area exceed the number of buses that can be stored and maintained at Northern Division. As a result, services that should have been operated from Northern Division are now based in divisions that are further away, thereby increasing deadhead mileage.



Moreover, the Metrobus system is short of maintenance capacity for articulated buses, particularly in the core service operation areas. The 12 designated maintenance bays are spread across four divisions: Bladensburg, Montgomery, Northern and Shepherd Parkway. The new facility at Shepherd Parkway while designed to accommodate articulated buses, there are currently no articulated buses based at this division. This is mainly due to the location being farther away from the core transit market where the need for articulated buses exists. Operating articulated buses from these facilities would incur significant deadheading cost. Therefore expanding the garage facilities to accommodate and maintain Artic buses in the core service areas will be crucial for the provision of an expanded Artic bus service. The deployment of articulated buses also would have to be timed with the rehabilitation and/or replacement of garages in the core transit market to allow them to store, maintain and operate articulated buses in a cost effective manner. Metro has been exploring opportunities for the replacement, rehabilitation and expansion of the Northern and Western garages. In the coming years it is anticipated that Northern will be replaced with a new facility and Western is being considered for redevelopment. Bladensburg division is also planned for a major redevelopment and expansion work. Metro will conduct a detailed analysis to identify the core routes to be converted from standard buses to articulated buses. In consideration of the circumstances aforementioned, this fleet plan assumes that the expansion of articulated bus services would occur after additional capacities for Artic bus storage and maintenance are created.

3.7.3 Strategic and Headway Management Buses

Strategic and headway management buses play similar but distinct roles in maintaining schedule/headway adherence. Strategic buses are strategically placed to be available to support a variety of routes in the event of unforeseen delays or disruptions in the provision of service. Headway management buses fill in for late buses on specific headway-managed routes. WMATA has continued its headway management strategy that was reported in the last fleet plan update. This strategy has improved service reliability and has led to a reduction in the number of strategic buses. As of June 2015, Metro uses 20 strategic and 8 headway management buses. But in the coming year’s Metro plans to expand headway managed services significantly to include most of the high ridership corridors. This is mainly to mitigate service reliability problems that has continued to grow due to the ever growing traffic congestion problem in the region. It is assumed that a ratio of 10% headway management buses will be required for headway-managed routes.



3.7.4 Spare Buses

Metrobus previously used a spare ratio of 15.6% as established by board policy in 1997. The WMATA Board of Directors established the spare ratio to encourage a continued reduction in cost of providing existing service, and to acknowledge WMATA’s excellent bus maintenance program. But over the years the Office of Bus Maintenance has documented that the 15.6% ratio was unable to support the various needs for which the spare buses are intended. Buses needed for driver training, and special projects were not factored into the 15.6%. The current fleet plan recommends increasing the spare ratio from the current 15.6% to 18.5% to include;

1. 14.7% to support routine day to day maintenance issues as well as longer term repair actions (Preventive and Corrective Maintenance’s),

2. 1.5% to support midlife overhauls, and 3. 2.3% to support training, and special projects (fleet and sub-fleet improvement

programs).

The proposed spare ratio is documented by extensive fleet operation experience and is deemed sufficient to support the various tasks spare buses are assigned for. Table 3-10 below shows the spare fleet requirements for 2015.

Table 3-10: Spare Fleet Requirement

Type 20151. Preventive Maintenance 1442. Corrective Maintenance 473. Midlife Overhaul 204. Others* 30Total Spare Bus 241Peak Vehicle Requirement (Dec. 2015) 1,301Fleet Spare Ratio (%) 18.5%

Note:* - Other spare buses supporting training, fleet campaigns and special projects for improving fleet and sub-fleet electronic equipment's.



3.8. Projection of Fleet Demand

As indicated in previous sections, this fleet plan projected the demand up to 2025. Table 3-11 shows a summary of the fleet demand projection between 2016 and 2025. Overall it is projected that the total Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) will increase by 437 vehicles, from 1,272 at the beginning of 2016 to 1,564 by the end of 2025. The total scheduled buses will also increase by 595 vehicles, from 1,645 at the beginning of 2016 to 2,240 by the end of 2025. This projection would add buses for the purpose of fleet expansion on top of the ongoing procurement for bus replacement. The expansion buses will support the implementation of the PCN and Emerging Corridors from 2016 to 2025, provide capacity by adding buses for service adjustments to relieve crowding and running time adjustments, add buses for elevator and emergency shuttle bus services and increase spare buses in proportion to the fleet growth and other requirements.



Table 3-11: Network Driven Fleet Demand Projection

Fiscal Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Scheduled PVR (Beginning of Year) 1,261 1,272 1,277 1,302 1,329 1,354 1,396 1,432 1,475 1,503 1,530 269Change in PVR 11 5 25 27 25 42 36 43 28 27 34 292

Priority Corridor Network 0 0 12 15 14 18 20 28 15 12 13 147PCN Articulated Buses 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 12 10 12 70

Emerging Corridors 0 0 8 7 6 11 11 10 8 10 16 87State of Good Operations (SOGO) (1) 11 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50New Service (2) 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8

Scheduled PVR (End of Year) 1,272 1,277 1,302 1,329 1,354 1,396 1,432 1,475 1,503 1,530 1,564 292Strategic Buses 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0Headway Management 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0Elevator and Emergency Shuttle Buse 0 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11Spare Buses Required (3) 200 218 269 276 282 292 301 311 318 325 334 134

Total Scheduled Buses 1500 1534 1610 1644 1675 1727 1772 1825 1860 1894 1937 437Other Buses 145 139 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 (48)

Contingency Buses 43 50 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 (11)Training Buses 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0Ready Reserve 52 69 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 (2)Buses For Metro Transit Police K9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0Historical Buses 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0Others (4) 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (35)

Total Fleet (End of Year) 1,645 1,673 1,707 1,741 1,772 1,824 1,869 1,922 1,957 1,991 2,034 389Unmet Fleet Demand (5) - 112 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 207

Total Fleet Demand (End of Year) 1,645 1,785 1,828 1,871 1,912 1,974 2,029 2,093 2,139 2,185 2,240 595Notes:

Spare Buses Required (3): • For 2015 and 2016 Spares = 15.6% * (End of Year Scheduled PVR + Strategic Buses + Headway Management + Elevator Shuttles - 19). 19 buses (6 high-back for BWI Airport and 13 branded Metroway) are not included in the 15.6% system spare ratio.• From 2017 to 2025 Spares = 18.5% (End of Year Scheduled PVR + Strategic Buses + Headway Management + Elevator Shuttles - 6). 6 high-back for BWI Airport are not included in the 18.5% system spare ratio.

Changes Over

PeriodPeak Vehicle Requirements

New Service (2): To be used for the proposed new service from Alexandria to Pentagon Transit Center.

Others (4): Include bues being prepared for scrap and incactive buses for maintenance reason.

SOGO (1): SOGO for FY2015 is covered by using existing old vehicles and FY2016 reflects the unmet fleet demand. From FY2017 onwards SOGO is 1% of the total PVR + Unmet Demand.

Unmet Demand (5): For FY16 it is based on current fleet need to allievate overcrowding and improve reliablity. From FY17 onward it is the difference between 1% of the Scheduled PVR (Begining of Year) and SOGO.



SECTION FOUR: METROBUS FLEET SUPPLY

Rehabilitation, replacement and expansion of Metro’s existing vehicle fleet are essential to delivering safe, reliable, and comfortable service to our customers. The Metrobus fleet has been modernized through a program of replacement and expansion. “Replacement” buses refer to newly-procured buses that replace older buses without increasing the size of the bus fleet. “Expansion” buses refer to buses that do increase the total size of the bus fleet. Increasing passenger and network demand on the system require continuing investments in bus replacement and expansion.

This chapter provides information on the fleet supply under the following categories:

• Current Fleet Composition • Recent Fleet Procurement • Planned Fleet Procurement • Projection of Fleet Supply

The key findings of this section are the following (as of June 2015):

• Current average fleet age has increased to 7.6 years from the 6.4 years reported in the previous fleet plan update, slightly higher than the target of 7.5 years

• Metro's target for fuel technology mix is 50% CNG and 50% diesel/hybrid. As of June, 2015, the fleet was 30% CNG and 52% hybrid

• 91% of the bus fleet is powered by clean fuel technologies including CNG, hybrid and clean diesel, up from 80% in 2012 and 45% in 2010

• The lifecycle cost of operating Hybrid and CNG fleets are more expensive than Clean Diesel. A review of the policy towards future fuel technologies and type of garage facilities that need to be built is needed

• This fleet plan recommends changing the 50% CNG and 50% Hybrid fuel mix policy to a combination of CNG and Clean Diesel only vehicles policy

• The average fleet age is expected to stay below the planning target age of 7.5 years for the duration of the next 10 year

• Between FY16 – FY25 195 expansion buses will be added to the fleet, of which 70 will be expanding the Artic bus fleet



4.1. Current Fleet Composition

As of June 21, 2015, Metrobus had a total of 1,548 buses in service with 23 undergoing heavy overhaul, resulting in a total fleet of 1,571 buses. The current bus fleet size shows an increase of 65 buses as compared to the previous fleet plan update. Metro complies with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and other regulatory requirements for providing an accessible public transit service. All of Metro buses are accessible. Metro has also developed a policy of making all of its fleet low floor buses. To meet this policy target Metro has been replacing old high floor buses with new low floor accessible buses. As of June, 2015 there are 143 (9.1%) buses in the revenue service with high floors. 70 other buses in non-revenue services have also high floors. In FY16 all of Metro’s revenue bus fleet is projected to be provided with low floor buses, when it completes the replacement of the old high floor Orion V and articulated bus fleets. The fleet make-up is shown in Figure 4-1, with a complete listing of fleet vehicle types shown in Table 4-1.

Figure 4-1: Metrobus Fleet Composition (June 2015)



Table 4-1: Composition of Metrobus Fleet (June 2015)

Make Model Model Year Age Fuel Type Length Seats Access Count Under

Maint.Orion O5.501 1997 18 Standard Diesel 40 42 Lift 25 0Orion O5.501 2000 15 Standard Diesel 40 43 Lift 97 0New Flyer C40LF 2001 14 CNG 40 40 Ramp 98 0New Flyer C40LF 2002 13 CNG 40 40 Ramp 62 0Neoplan AN460 2003 12 Standard Diesel 60 66 Lift 21 0Orion O7.501 2005 10 CNG 40 41 Ramp 215 0Orion O7.505 2005 10 CNG 30 29 Ramp 35 0New Flyer DE40LF 2006 9 Hybrid 40 39 Ramp 1 13New Flyer DE40LFR 2006 9 Hybrid 40 39 Ramp 49 0New Flyer D40LFR 2006 9 Clean Diesel 41 39 Ramp 6 5New Flyer D40LFR 2006 9 Clean Diesel 41 38 Ramp 110 0New Flyer C40LFR 2007 8 CNG 41 40 Ramp 25 3NABI 60BRT-08 2008 7 CNG 62 61 Ramp 22 2New Flyer DE42LFA 2008 7 Hybrid 42 39 Ramp 101 0New Flyer DE37LFA 2009 6 Hybrid 37 29 Ramp 19 0New Flyer DE62LFA 2009 6 Hybrid 62 62 Ramp 22 0New Flyer DE42LFA 2009 6 Hybrid 42 39 Ramp 58 0New Flyer DE42LFA 2010 5 Hybrid 42 39 Ramp 148 0New Flyer XDE40 2011 4 Hybrid 40 40 Ramp 15 0New Flyer XDE40 2011 4 Hybrid 42 40 Ramp 85 0New Flyer XDE40 2012 3 Hybrid 40 40 Ramp 67 0Orion O7.503 2012 3 Hybrid 30 27 Ramp 25 0Orion O7.503 2012 3 Clean Diesel 30 27 Ramp 27 0Ford F550 2013 2 Clean Diesel 26 40 Ramp 6 0New Flyer XDE40 2013 2 Hybrid 40 40 Ramp 104 0

NABI BRT 2014 1 Hybrid 42 42 Ramp 105 0

Average 7.6 Total 1548 23



4.1.1. Fleet Age

Metrobus retires buses after approximately 15 years of service. The exact time of retirement is based on the model year and depend on a variety of factors including condition and reliability. This results in an average age goal of 7.5 years.

As of June 21, 2015, the average Metrobus fleet age was 7.6 years old, increased from an average fleet age of 6.4 years in the 2013 Plan but still lower than the 8.7 years reported in the 2010 Plan. The recent increase in the fleet age is due to the continuous operation of older fleets as they are not replaced as scheduled. The oldest buses in the fleet are the Orion 5 buses, kept in service to replace the Orion 6 bus fleet which was withdrawn from service due to reliability problems. The previous fleet plan update stated that the Orion 5 bus fleet were scheduled to be retired by 2014. The current plan is to replace all of these buses in FY16. Previously it was also reported that there are no buses older than 15 years in the Metrobus fleet. As of June 21, there are 122 buses (8%) that are more than 15 years older in the Metrobus fleet. Figure 4-2 shows the breakdown of the fleet size by procurement years.

Figure 4-2: Current Metrobus Revenue Fleet by Procurement Year (June 2015)



Figure 4-3 and 4-4 show the fleet composition by age and fleet type.

Figure 4-3: Metrobus Composition of Fleet Age (June 2015)

Figure 4-4: Average Age by Fleet Type (June 2015)



4.1.2. Fleet Fuel Technology

Over the past five years, WMATA has continued its programmatic goals to increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of Metrobuses fleet 462 (29%) are fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG), 812 (52%) are hybrid diesel electric, 154 (10%) are fueled by clean diesel and 143 (9%) are fueled by standard diesel. Figure 4-5 presents the breakdown of the fleet by fuel type and Figure 4-6 shows average age by fleet type.

Figure 4-5: Metrobus Fleet by Fuel Type (June 2015)

Figure 4-6: Metrobus Fleet Average Age by Fuel Type (2009 – 2015)



As illustrated in Figure 4-5, the share of the bus fleet using clean fuel technologies is 91 percent. This is an 11 percent increase over the previous fleet plan update and has more than doubled since the 2010 Plan that showed only 45% of the fleet was using clean fuels.

The standard diesel fleet has continued to decline from 55% of the Metrobus fleet in 2009 to 20% in 2012 and to 9% at the end of June, 2015. Correspondingly the Hybrid diesel electric buses have increased from 6% of the Metrobus fleet in 2009 to 42% in 2012 and 52% at the end of June, 2015. The share of CNG-fueled buses showed a slight decline from 31% of the fleet in 2009 and 2012 to 29% at the end of June, 2015. The clean diesel fleet has also shown a slight increment from 8% in 2012 to 10% by the end of June, 2015. Figure 4-7 shows the change in the fleet fuel composition since 2009.

Figure 4-7: Metrobus Fleet by Fuel Type (2009 – 2015)

While the average age is up in each fuel type category, the large decrease in standard diesel buses reduces the contribution of those buses to the fleet-wide average age. The purchase of nearly 500 hybrid diesel electric buses over the past 3 years has also greatly increased the contribution of those new buses to the overall average.



4.1.3 Fleet Operating Cost by Fuel Type

Since 2012 the cost of operating different fuel types has increased across the board with an overall increase in the average cost per mile of 14 percent. Substantial increases in the cost of services, as shown in Table 4-3, and Hybrid cost per mile have contributed to the upward trend. Table 4-2 and 4-3 present the cost per mile and items used for the cost calculation.

Table 4-2: Average Operating Cost per Mile by Fuel Technology

Table 4-3: Cost Items

Year CNG Hybrid Clean Diesel

Standard Diesel

Average Cost Per Mile

2012 $1.18 $0.99 $1.28 $2.32 $1.442015 $1.46 $1.62 $1.69 $2.86 $1.64

% Change 24% 64% 32% 23% 14%

Items 2012 2015 % Change

Diesel/gallon $2.50 $2.71 8%CNG/gallon $1.56 $0.82 -47%Oil/quart $2.15 $2.51 17%Coolant/quart $1.34 $1.34 0%ATF/quart (1) $6.34 $7.11 12%Low floor tire/mile $0.01 $0.01 0%High floor tire/mile $0.01 $0.01 0%Services (2) $202.59 $468.99 131%

Brake Shoe Reline - $74.60 -Bus Cleaning - $72.03 -Bus Seat Repair - $43.00 -Camera Maintenance - $72.84 -Destination Signs - $33.61 -Fire Suppression - $30.89 -Fluid Analysis - $11.37 -Drive Cam - $47.72 -Clever Devices - $82.93 -

Additional Labor (2) - $256.80 -In

‐

house Bus Cleaning - $59.76 -Service/Fuel Bus - $197.04 -

Average Cost Per Mile $1.44 $1.64 14%Note:

(1) - ATF - Automatic Transmission Fluid(2) - Services and Additional Labor costs are per month and per bus.



Current WMATA policy is to work towards a 50/50 fleet mix of CNG and Hybrids. Since the last fleet plan update, WMATA has succeeded in transforming around half of its bus fleet to Hybrid buses, but the relative percentage of CNG buses has declined. The growth of CNG fleet has been hindered by the lack of adequate CNG fueling facilities. But with the anticipated opening of a CNG facility at Shepherd Parkway and a rebuilt Bladensburg there will be room for increasing the CNG fleet size in the coming years.

4.1.4 Bus Lifecycle Cost The Office of Bus Maintenance have been tracking bus lifecycle cost for the different fuel technologies since the introduction of CNG and hybrid buses. The data indicated that, over a 15 year lifecycle, the costs of buying and operating CNG and hybrid buses are consistently more expensive than Clean Diesel buses. Table 4-4 below shows the estimated lifecycle costs of a bus for the different fuel technologies based on low, medium and high fuel cost estimates. The cost includes both capital and operating costs. The operating cost includes, fuel and tire, labor and material used for preventive and corrective maintenance, fuel compression and maintenance costs associated with CNG fueling stations. The capital cost includes the initial purchase, midlife overhaul costs and construction of CNG fueling facilities amortized over 20 years period. It should be noted that the driving factor for total lifecycle cost is the cost of fuel.

Table 4-4: Bus Lifecycle Cost Estimate (In ‘000, June 2015)

Fuel Technology Diesel Hybrid CNG Diesel Hybrid CNG Diesel Hybrid CNGCapital Cost $678.9 $883.4 $734.3 $678.9 $883.4 $734.3 $678.9 $883.4 $734.3Operating Cost $580.3 $539.5 $817.5 $715.4 $662.3 $829.0 $815.8 $753.4 $993.5Total Lifecycle Cost $1,259.2 $1,423.0 $1,551.8 $1,394.4 $1,545.7 $1,563.3 $1,494.7 $1,636.8 $1,727.8

Low Fuel Cost Estimate ($1.55/gal, $0.75/DGE)

Medium Fuel Cost Estimate ($2.87/gal, $0.82/DGE)

High Fuel Cost Estimate ($3.85/gal, $1.00/DGE)



Using the existing fleet, the lifecycle cost is calculated for the low, medium and high fuel cost estimates. The lifecycle cost estimate ranges from $2.2 – $2.6 billion. See Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-5: Existing Fleet Lifecycle Cost Estimate

Using the lifecycle cost estimate the following three scenarios were used to assess the implications of the existing 50/50 fleet mix policy on the overall cost efficiency of Metrobus services. June 2015 fleet size is used for calculating the cost estimate.

Scenario 1 – Implementing 50% CNG and 50% Hybrid Policy

Fulfilling the 50/50 policy would require the conversion of more buses to CNG and the expansion of CNG facilities. Assuming an equal split of the fleet into the two fuel mixes the total life cycle cost estimate ranges from $2.3 - $2.6 billion (Table 4-6). Compared to the existing fleet lifecycle cost estimate, implementing the 50/50 policy will increase the overall lifecycle cost by $50 - $90 million.

Table 4-6: Implementing 50% CNG and 50% Hybrid Policy

Type No. Buses Low Fuel Cost Medium Fuel Cost High Fuel Cost

Diesel 297 $373,991,607 $414,134,424 $443,937,186CNG 462 $716,935,758 $722,255,688 $798,253,302Hybrid 812 $1,155,452,452 $1,255,108,400 $1,329,095,404

Total 1,571 $2,246,379,817 $2,391,498,512 $2,571,285,892

Total Life Cycle Cost Estimate


Clean Diesel 0 $0 $0 $0CNG 785 $1,218,170,065 $1,227,209,340 $1,356,339,485Hybrid 786 $1,118,455,206 $1,214,920,200 $1,286,538,162

Total 1,571 $2,336,625,271 $2,442,129,540 $2,642,877,647




Full implementation of this scenario is a function of the diesel fleet age and CNG fueling stations availability in Metrobus facilities. New CNG fueling facility is under construction at Shepherd Parkway Division. Bladensburg facility will be demolished by 2019 for reconstruction and reopens by 2023. The combination of Bladensburg, Four Mile Run and Shepherd Parkway will provide a total CNG capacity of 725 by 2023, slightly less than the 50% share of the fleet. In order to implement this scenario, hybrid fleets purchased during 2008 and 2009 should be targeted for conversion to CNG when programming their replacement.

Scenario 2 – Converting Hybrids to Clean Diesel

This option takes into consideration the new CNG facility that is being built at Shepherd Parkway, continued use of the CNG facilities at Four Mile Run, and Bladensburg will continue to have CNG capacity after rebuilding. In addition it assumes utilization of the current CNG fleet and those that are in the process of procurement to the end of their lifecycle. All the remaining fleet will be converted to Clean Diesel. Based on this scenario, the total lifecycle cost ranges from $2.1 - $2.5 billion (Table 4-7). Compared to the lifecycle cost estimate of the existing fleet mix this option will reduce the total lifecycle cost by $92 - $104 million. When compared to the target 50/50 policy lifecycle cost estimate, this option will reduce the total lifecycle cost by $157 - $194 million. See Table 4-9 for details.

Full implementation of this scenario is a function of the hybrid fleet age and planned future replacement schedules. New hybrid vehicles were bought in 2015 and more will be added in 2016. Assuming that no new hybrid buses will be procured after 2016, phasing out all the hybrid fleet, under this scenario, will take place by 2030 and 2031.

Table 4-7: Converting Hybrids to Clean Diesel


Clean Diesel 1,009 $1,270,564,079 $1,406,941,528 $1,508,190,642CNG 562 $872,116,658 $878,588,088 $971,035,402Hybrid 0 $0 $0 $0

Total 1,571 $2,142,680,737 $2,285,529,616 $2,479,226,044




Scenario 3 – Converting All Buses to Clean Diesel

This option calculates the lifecycle cost estimate of the Metrobus fleet by assuming all buses will be converted to clean diesel. Based on this scenario, the total lifecycle cost ranges from $2.0 - $2.3 billion (Table 4-8). Compared to the lifecycle cost estimate of the existing fleet mix this option will reduce the total cost by $201 - $268 million. Similarly when compared to the target 50/50 policy, this option will reduce the total lifecycle cost by $295 - $358 million. See Table 4-9 for details.

Full implementation of this scenario is a function of the hybrid and CNG fleet age and planned future procurement schedules. Procurement of new CNG fleet for replacing old vehicles are in the pipeline for 2018 and 2019. Assuming that no new hybrid and CNG buses will be procured after 2019, phasing out all the CNG and hybrid fleets, under this scenario, will take place by 2034. This doesn’t take into consideration the full lifecycle of the new CNG facility at Shepherd Parkway and Bladensburg.

Table 4-8: Converting All Buses to Clean Diesel

Type No. Buses Low Fuel Cost Medium Fuel Cost High Fuel CostClean Diesel 1,571 $1,978,251,901 $2,190,589,832 $2,348,233,398CNG 0 $0 $0 $0Hybrid 0 $0 $0 $0

Total 1,571 $1,978,251,901 $2,190,589,832 $2,348,233,398




Table 4-9: Cost Comparison

At the turn of the 21st Century diesel buses had a disadvantage compared to CNG and hybrid buses in terms of total emissions. Since then, significant progress have been made and all engine technologies emit nearly identical levels of regulated emissions (PM, NOx, HC, CO), while hybrids and CNG have an approximately 15% advantage over diesel in terms of GHG emissions. All buses, including CNG, diesel, and hybrids fully comply with the emission standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

WMATA has begun a new Capital Improvement Plan to be followed by bus fleet procurement program for the coming years. Given the significant cost saving which could be generated from changing the fuel technology, it is imperative to review the policy towards future fuel technologies and the type of garage facility that would be planned to be built. This fleet plan recommends changing the previous fuel mix policy (50% CNG and 50% hybrid) to a combination of Diesel and CNG vehicles policy. This is based on substantial lifecycle cost savings, and diesel’s compliance to EPA’s emission standards. Keeping the CNG fleet will also minimize exposure to risk of fuel price spikes, reduce the reliance on single fuel source, and allow the full lifecycle utilization of the existing CNG fleet and facilities. Based on this the changes in the fleet fuel technologies is shown on Table 4-10 and Figure 4-8.

Low Fuel Cost Medium Fuel Cost High Fuel Cost

$90,245,454 $50,631,028 $71,591,755($103,699,080) ($105,968,896) ($92,059,848)($268,127,916) ($200,908,680) ($223,052,494)

$90,245,454 $50,631,028 $71,591,755$193,944,534 $156,599,924 $163,651,603$358,373,370 $251,539,708 $294,644,249

BASEScenario (2)Scenario (3)

Compare Current (Table 4-5) to:

Scenario (1)Scenario (2)Scenario (3)

Compare Scenario 1 to:



Table 4-10: Fleet Fuel Technology Changes

Figure 4-8: Fleet Fuel Technology Changes

Year CNG Clean Diesel Hybrid Standard

Diesel Total

2015 462 154 812 143 1,5712016 462 154 943 12 1,5712017 462 154 943 12 1,5712018 452 154 953 12 1,5712019 452 154 953 12 1,5712020 452 166 953 0 1,5712021 452 216 903 0 1,5712022 452 303 816 0 1,5712023 477 353 741 0 1,5712024 502 428 641 0 1,5712025 527 503 541 0 1,5712026 552 578 441 0 1,5712027 577 626 368 0 1,5712028 602 701 268 0 1,5712029 602 801 168 0 1,5712030 602 874 95 0 1,571



4.1.5. Fleet Operating Division

Currently, four garages host vehicles with an average age greater than 7.5 years. In 2010, eight garages had average ages exceeding 7.5 years while in 2012 there were only three garages. Bladensburg division hosts vehicles with an average age of 12 years while West Ox, Shepherd Parkway and Western divisions provide service for newer fleets that have less than four years of average age. Figure 4-9 illustrates average age by operating division.

Figure 4-9: Average Age by Operating Division (June 2015)

4.1.6. Fleet Distribution by Jurisdiction

Metro has a policy objective of providing equitable service across all jurisdictions it serves. When new buses are procured they are distributed to the operating divisions by taking account of the age of buses in each division. As a result there is a comparable average age of buses in each jurisdiction.

There are nine operating divisions in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. The four bus facilities located in the District have 760 buses of which 724 are used for routes operating in the District. The average age of buses providing service in the District is 7.9 years. In Maryland 443 buses are used for services of which 394 are operated from the three garages located



within Maryland. The remaining 50 buses operate out of garages that are located in the District. With an average fleet age of 7.0 years Maryland has the youngest fleet in service. For services operated in Virginia 403 buses are used, 341 originate from the two operating divisions located in Virginia and the remaining 63 buses from Shepherd Parkway located in the District. The average age of buses providing service in Virginia is 7.1 years. Table 4-11 and Figure 4-10 provide more details.

Table 4-11: Bus Fleet Operational Distribution by Garage and Jurisdiction (June, 2015)

Division No. Of Buses

Average Age Division No. Of

BusesAverage

AgeBladensburg 254 11.8 Montgomery 192 7.1Northern 144 7.7 Landover 177 6.9Shepherd Parkway 130 3.8 Southern Avenue 25 9.2Western 119 3.6 From Bladensburg 12 11.8From Southern 54 9.2 From Northern 6 7.7From Montgomery 22 7.1 From Shepherd Parkway 32 3.8

Sub Total 724 7.9 Sub Total 443 7.0

Division No. Of Buses

Average Age

Four Mile Run 222 9.8West Ox 119 3.9From Shepherd Parkway 63 3.8

Sub Total 404 7.1

DISTRICT of COLUMBIA MARYLAND

VIRGINIA



Figure 4-10: Jurisdictional Distribution and Average Age of Buses (June, 2015)



4.2. Recent Fleet Procurement

Between 2010 and 2015 Metro has purchased 662 buses, of which 599 are Hybrids, 30 CNG and the remaining 33 are Clean Diesels. The majority of the buses purchased over the past few years have been replacement buses with only 20 buses purchased for service expansion. Table 4-12 shows the fleet procurement by model year.

Table 4-12: Metrobus Fleet Procurement (2010 – 2015)

4.3. Planned Fleet Procurement

Metro has plans to procure 995 replacement and 180 expansion buses between FY16 and FY25. Between FY17 to FY25 a total of 20 expansion buses per year is planned for procurement.

As shown on Table 4-12 above, the majority of buses purchased since the last fleet plan were hybrid with the exception of the 30 CNG and 33 Clean Diesel buses procured for replacement. The lack of CNG fueling capacity at bus garages has constrained the purchase of CNG buses for expansion. Shepherd Parkway is planned to have a CNG fueling facility by 2018. In the short run all CNG bus purchases will be for replacements of existing CNG buses. Expansion of CNG buses will start after Metro develops additional CNG fueling capacity.

Model Year

Bus Size Fuel Type Quantity Type

2010 40' Hybrid 148 Replacement2011 40' Hybrid 100 Replacement2012 40' Hybrid 67 Replacement2012 30' Clean Diesel 27 Replacement2012 25' Hybrid 25 Replacement2013 40' Hybrid 104 Replacement2013 26' Clean Diesel 6 Replacement2014 40' Hybrid 85 Replacement2014 40' Hybrid 20 Expansion2015 60' Hybrid 21 Replacement2015 40' CNG 30 Replacement2015 40' Hybrid 29 Replacement

662Total



4.3.1. Replacement of Buses

Overall Metro plans to procure 1,013 buses for replacement in the coming 10 years. Between FY16 and FY21 Metro has a firm plan to replace 616 buses of which 364 are CNG, 67 Clean Diesel and the remaining 185 are Hybrids. A further 200 buses are in the schedule of replacement for FY22 and FY23 of which 175 are Hybrids and 25 CNG. 200 more buses are also being planned for procurement to replace older buses in FY24 and FY25 with their fuel technology yet to be determined. See Table 4-13 for additional information.

Table 4-13: Metrobus Fleet Replacement Schedule (2016 – 2025)

Bus replacements are designed to relieve buses that exceed 15 years of service. Articulated buses are retired at 12 years, as they take more wear and tear than standard buses and are not cost effective to maintain beyond their minimum useful lifespan. The CNG replacements will be to relieve Metro's oldest CNG fleet, which have CNG tank certifications expiring after 15 years.

Replacement Year Size Fuel Type Quantity

2016 40' CNG 1342016 40' Hybrid 812018 40' CNG 802018 60' Hybrid 102019 40' CNG 1002020 40' CNG 152020 40' Hybrid 502020 30' CNG 352020 60' Hybrid 222021 40' Clean Diesel 672021 60' Hybrid 222022 40' Hybrid 752022 60' Hybrid 252023 40' Hybrid 752023 40' CNG 252024 40' Hybrid 752024 40' CNG 252025 40' Hybrid 752025 40' CNG 25

1,016Total



The replacement of old diesel buses with new fuel technology buses will continue in the coming years. As of the end of FY15 there are only 143 standard diesel buses in total accounting for 9 percent of the total fleet. The diesel fleet is planned to be reduced to 39 buses at the beginning of FY16 and Metro plans to replace all of its diesel buses by the end of FY21.

4.3.2. Bus Fleet Expansion

Weekday bus ridership averaged 443,000 daily trips in FY15 and total annual ridership for FY15 has reached 132.9 million. Based on Metro’s in house prediction the total annual ridership could grow to 145.4 million by FY25, an increase of 9.4 percent (see Section 2.3). This projection results from growth on the existing network, and service improvements to be added in the PCN and Emerging Corridor networks. Metro plans to procure 180 new buses for fleet expansion. Table 4-14 shows the bus fleet expansion schedule.

Table 4-14: Metrobus Fleet Expansion Schedule

Expansion Year Size Fuel

Type Quantity

2017 40' Hybrid 202018 40' Hybrid 202019 40' Hybrid 202020 40' Hybrid 82020 60' Hybrid 122021 40' Hybrid 82021 60' Hybrid 122022 40' Hybrid 82022 60' TBD 122023 40' TBD 82023 60' TBD 122024 40' TBD 102024 60' TBD 102025 40' TBD 82025 60' TBD 12

180Total



4.3.3. Rehabilitation of Buses

During the first 7 ½ years of life a Metrobus will accumulate approximately 248,000 miles averaging around 33,000 miles per year. To maintain the fleet in a good state of repair, Metro performs a comprehensive overhaul as buses reach their midlife at 7½ years of age. The mid-life overhaul program rebuilds the bus engine, transmission and electronics, replaces chassis parts and seats and repaints the body, restoring the bus to an “as new” condition. On average, WMATA targets to rehabilitate 100 buses per year and the cost of the mid-life overhaul is approximately $210,000 per hybrid bus, and $160,000 for CNG/Diesel buses.

All major transit agencies operate a mid-life rehabilitation program which reduces maintenance and operating costs and results in fewer breakdowns and major repairs. Metro’s mid-life rehabilitation program is a commitment to good maintenance and an effort to maximize capital investments.

Metro’s current maintenance capacity at its garages allows for the rehabilitation of 20 buses at any given time, which totals 100 buses per year. Metro’s maintenance capacity is anticipated to increase with the opening of Andrews Federal Center, Cinder Bed Road and rebuilding of Bladensburg facility. The heavy overhaul functions currently located at the Bladensburg division is planned to be transferred permanently to Andrews Federal Center. Currently there are 36 working bays at Bladensburg and this will increase to 46 working bays when Andrews Federal Center opens. This will increase the maintenance capacity by 10 additional buses and support the increased maintenance needs associated with a growing fleet size. The rebuilding of Bladensburg division is anticipated to start in FY19, when the new Cinder Bed and Andrews Federal Center garages opens, and completion expected in FY22. For detailed information refer to the 2017 Metrobus Facilities Plan.

4.3.4. Ready Reserve Fleet Metro maintains a Ready Reserve Fleet of overage buses. The Ready Reserve Fleet is composed of older vehicles, past their scheduled replacement, that nevertheless would be suitable for passenger service to support regular revenue operations or special events. The primary purpose of the Ready Reserve Fleet is to replace buses that are not economically feasible to repair, accommodate approved increases in service, replace buses that are removed from service for fleet failures and provide buses for emergency situations. These vehicles are preserved in stored condition and are ready for service. Metro is authorized to keep and maintain 50 Ready Reserve buses. But the number of vehicles in the Ready Reserve Fleet



varies from year to year depending on the number of accidents, number of vehicles scheduled for peak service, necessary safety campaign and other emergencies.

4.4. Projection of Fleet Supply

4.4.1. Summary In the FY15 and FY16 no money is budgeted for funding the expansion of the bus program. From FY17 to FY25 Metro plans to buy a total of 180 buses for fleet expansion of which 70 will be Articulated and the remaining 110 standard buses. Table 4-15 illustrates the current plan for bus procurement, with replacement buses being augmented by 20 expansion buses per year beginning in FY17. Overall the total fleet supply will increase by 195 buses from FY16 to FY25. The 195 bus includes the addition of 15 old buses that will be kept in the operating fleet. Because Metro does not have the capital budget to meet the demand for new buses, it is possible that buses targeted for retirement through the bus replacement program may be kept in the operating fleet. These buses would be used to help attain a state of good operations on existing bus routes.

Table 4-15: Supply of Revenue Vehicles

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25Changes

Over Period

Beginning of Year Total 1,560 1,645 1,660 1,680 1,700 1,720 1,740 1,760 1,780 1,800 1,820 260New Buses For Replacement 80 215 0 110 132 105 97 100 100 100 100 1,059

Standard 59 215 0 100 108 64 97 78 100 100 100 962Artics 21 0 0 10 24 0 0 22 0 0 0 56Small 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 41

New Buses For Expansion 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 180Standard 0 0 20 20 20 8 8 8 8 10 8 110Artics 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 12 10 12 70

Total New Buses Added 80 215 20 130 152 125 117 120 120 120 120 1,239Old Buses Added to Service 85 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15Retired Buses (80) (215) 0 (110) (132) (105) (97) (100) (100) (100) (100) (1,059)

Net Change 85 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 195Supply of Scheduled Buses End of Year 1,500 1,515 1,535 1,555 1,575 1,595 1,615 1,635 1,655 1,675 1,695 180Other Buses 145 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 (21)

End of Year Total 1,645 1,660 1,680 1,700 1,720 1,740 1,760 1,780 1,800 1,820 1,840 195



4.4.2. Strategies for Fleet Mix

As noted previously Metro targets for a fleet mix of 50% CNG and 50% Hybrid buses. The share of Hybrid buses have reached the planned target but the share of the CNG bus fleet hasn’t changed, due to fueling capacity constraints. Since the last fleet plan the focus has been on purchasing diesel-electric hybrid vehicles until additional CNG fueling capacity comes online. With the planned addition of CNG fueling facility at Shepherd Parkway Division, full reconstruction and possible expansion of Bladensburg, it is possible to plan for expansion of the CNG fleet.

However, as indicated in Section 4.1.4, the high lifecycle cost of both CNG and Hybrid buses makes them very inefficient for continued use in the future. Improvements in emission levels together with a significant cost savings associated with Clean Diesel buses makes them the ideal candidate for the future. This fleet plan recommends the change in the fleet mix policy and strategy in favor of CNG and Clean Diesel buses only.



4.4.3. Projection of Fleet Age Metro has been successful at reducing the average fleet age. As noted above, the fleet age at the end of FY15 is 7.6 years, slightly higher than the last fleet plan update but down from 8.7 years registered for the 2010 fleet plan. But with the planned replacement of 295 older fleets in the coming year the average fleet age is projected to be reduced to 5.9 years by 2016. The fleet age, based on Metro’s fleet replacement and expansion schedule, will continue to remain below the target age of 7.5 years for the fleet planning period. Figure 4-11 illustrates the change in average fleet age over a 15 year timeline. The bus replacement and expansion schedule, as shown in Table 4-13 and Table 4-14, above illustrates a smoother and more consistent procurement, resulting in an average age approaching 7.5 years, which is half the Metrobus retirement age.

Figure 4-11: Projection of Average Fleet Age (FY16 - FY25)



SECTION FIVE: FLEET MAINTENANCE

Each Metrobus vehicle is a major capital investment that needs proper maintenance in order to maximize its service life and reduce capital and operating expenditures. Proper maintenance of the fleet is also essential to providing safe, reliable and attractive service.

However, a portion of the fleet will be out of service due to unexpected failures as buses occasionally fail in service regardless of how well they are maintained. The ripple effect of a bus breakdown could cause passenger delay, increase travel time and overcrowd buses. In the past Metrobus had a large portion of older buses in active service which increased the possibility of breakdown even under a rigorous maintenance program. But more recently the consistent replacement of older buses with new ones and the reduction of the average fleet age has led to improvements in the reliability of the fleet.

Metro’s maintenance needs and requirements will increase over the next decade, due to fleet growth and the mix of different vehicle technologies. A larger fleet requires more resources – equipment, facilities and personnel – to be devoted to maintenance. Additionally, new technologies continue to evolve over time, demanding new equipment’s and practices.

This chapter provides information on the Metrobus fleet maintenance plan under the following categories:

• Overview of Fleet Maintenance • Current Fleet Performance • Types of Maintenance • Maintenance Capacity for Fleet • Distribution of Maintenance Functions • Projection of Demand for Maintenance of Revenue Vehicles

The key findings of this section are the following:

• Operating policies and conditions have not changed significantly since the previous plan • Mean distance between failures has improved • Increase in projected maintenance demand due to increase in fleet size and spare ratio • Due to lack of capacity, begining 2019 a significant part of the midlife overhaul

maintenance work will be done more than a year later than the standard 7.5 years



5.1. Overview of Fleet Maintenance

Metro’s in-house maintenance functions include the full scope of normal running maintenance, complete paint and body work, and full component overhaul. The stated mission of Metro’s Bus Maintenance (BMNT) is “to provide safe, clean, reliable buses, service vehicles and support equipment to customers in an equitable and efficient manner.” Maintenance procedures and practices are continuously reviewed and adjusted to stay ahead of impending issues that could affect future performances. In addition to controllable factors, risks that impact performance outside of BMNT’s domain are also evaluated. BMNT uses a Risk Categorization table which enumerates all issues that may potentially reduce the fleet’s performance during the year and possible situations that will be faced the following year. Metro’s BMNT has undertaken several initiatives that improved the reliability and efficiencies of vehicles. Some of the initiatives include, the CoABE(Consolidation of On-Board Ancillary Bus Equipment) on‐board electronic installation program, (which ensured all on‐board electronic equipment are in a state of good repair), introduction of EMP electric Fans into the fleet (to help reduce fuel use on Hybrid Fleet and reduces probability of bus fires) and opening of a new paint and body center at CTF, to provide additional capability to ensure the overall fleet appearance is maintained at a high level. As a result of these initiatives and other improvements Metro’s fleet reliability has improved significantly. Metro completed CY2014 with the highest Mean Distance Between Failures (MDBF) in Metrobus history at 8,309 miles. Metro’s maintenance functions follow procedures set forth by manufacturers’ maintenance manuals and Metrobus standard practice. Completed maintenance activities are documented on the pertinent reporting forms, reviewed and certified by a supervisor, and entered into the specified reporting system. Metro established an extensive support infrastructure and quality control process for the program, allowing crews to exercise control over the process which translates into better body work, mechanical component overhaul and bus rehabilitation. Metro uses an automated record keeping system, Maximo, for tracking bus maintenance functions, parts inventory, and record keeping. Metro developed both automated and manual systems for record keeping. The automated system is an on-line Maximo system, which provides a complete maintenance history on each vehicle and makes it possible to perform a thorough equipment reliability analysis. Using Maximo, maintenance crews are able to track all preventive and corrective maintenance actions. Metro also uses a manual record-keeping



system. The combination of automated and manual systems assures the best possible vehicle maintenance at the lowest cost.

Metro follows its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Inventory Management to set up and/or modify an item in a storeroom within Maximo. The SOP specifies:

• The responsible section that ensures the sufficiency of stock levels to meet the operating needs of the divisions.

• Stock out rate shall be less than 5% at all locations. • Preventive maintenance (PMI), ADA, bike rack, and fare box parts shall be maintained at

98% item availability. • Storeroom locations shall not have more than 75 line items of No Demand Material with

stock on hand. • Slow moving items shall be reviewed monthly and adjust Reorder Points / Economic

Reorder Quantity’s as appropriate.

Metro uses industry standard “reorder point calculation” in order to optimize the reordering process for inventory items. This method captures the last three year average of vendor lead times plus the 45 days for internal administrative lead time as well as the demand (average daily usage) of the item. Reorder Point (ROP) = Lead Time * Demand

Metro also sets the economic order quantity (EOQ) to a six month usage at the main distribution center. This is due to the administrative time and cost to complete more than two procurement actions each year. To maintain an acceptable level of inventory Metro uses a Maximo report that reflects system-wide inventory usage to actual work orders. The Maximo report allows usage for a particular item across all departments. In addition, if a department is forecasting an increase in usage beyond past usage, the department is advised to notify their inventory planning team. In Bus Maintenance, the inventory planning team works closely with Bus engineering to determine service levels of the fleet to optimize the inventory, and attends lead-persons meeting to understand uptick in failures. In addition the Bus engineering and the inventory planning team collaborate to manage the bus fleet from warranty coverage from the manufacturers to operations and maintenance support.

Metro also stages tow trucks and service trucks throughout the system to respond quickly to vehicles that have failed while in service. Service trucks are equipped with fluids, air compressors, tool kits, jump start equipment and spare parts. If service truck personnel are unable to return a disabled bus to service, it is towed to its home division for more extensive repair, and a replacement bus is put into service.



Overall, Metro's fleet maintenance systems and policies have not changed significantly since the release of the previous fleet plan. But the maintenance systems, policies and procedures has been undergoing further developments and refinements over time. Metro also follows guidelines set forth in manufacturers' manuals merged with standard practice.

5.2. Current Fleet Performance

Overall Metrobus fleet performance has made steady progress over the years. The performance improvement is attributed to the implementation of procedures and policies such as, stringent specifications of buses, constant interface with vendors and manufacturers for improvement, the continuing replacement of old buses with new buses, a preventative maintenance program that is consistently reviewed and updated, a robust mid-life rehabilitation program averaging 100 buses per annum, and the collation and assessment of data that helps to curtail performance failures. Review and update of the maintenance program is done every two years but this subject to change with delivery of new buses and when a notice of change received from the manufacturer. Metro also applies its Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that establishes the requirements for the development and performance of the preventive and corrective maintenance procedures.

5.2.1. In-Service Failures Metro tracks bus failures daily, weekly, and monthly, and categorizes incidents into four categories which are:

• Change-Off With Passenger Impact: Any bus replacement for an incident between layover points that causes passengers to transfer from the defective bus to a replacement bus with or without deviation from schedule.

• Change-Off Without Passenger Impact: Any bus replacement at layover points or while deadheading where there are no passengers transfers or delays.

• Road-Call With Passenger Impact: Any incident while in revenue service that requires the bus to be removed from service or responded to by an emergency vehicle with deviation from schedule.

• Road-Call Without Passenger Impact: Any breakdown during deadheading, or at layover points that requires the bus to be removed from service or responded to by a service truck with no deviation from schedule.



The 2010 fleet plan reported a total of 15,792 in-service failures for FY09, averaging 44 change-offs and road-calls per day. In FY15, Metrobus experienced a total of 7,154 bus failures, averaging 20 change-offs and road-calls per day. The in-service failures have been reduced by 55 percent since the 2010 plan. The main factors for this significant improvement in performance is the replacement of older vehicles with new ones resulting in a lower average fleet age together with a robust preventative overhaul program and other initiatives outlined above.

The in-service failures displayed in Table 5-1 vary among buses using different technologies, though primarily caused by the age of the fleet. As illustrated in Figure 5-1, diesel buses made up the oldest fleet (averaging 15 years of age) followed by CNG fleet (averaging 11 years of age). These fleets experienced the most failures (6 per bus for diesel and 5 per bus for CNG) in FY15; newer hybrid and clean diesel buses had lower failure rates.

Table 5-1: Causes of In-Service Failures (FY15)

Cause Counts Percent

Air 739 10%Alarms/Buzzers/Indicatiors 1,160 16%Body 1,115 16%Brakes 389 5%Electrical 247 3%Engine/Transmission 2,653 37%Fluid 380 5%Wheelchair Lift 176 2%Others 295 4%Total 7,154 100%



Figure 5-1: Average In-Service Failures by Vehicle Technology

5.2.2. Mean Distance Between Failures

Mean Distance Between Failures (MDBF) is defined as the number of chargeable service interruptions during revenue service divided into actual miles. Metro has been able to limit the number of Metrobus failures by applying operating and maintenance strategies. The replacement of older vehicles and gradual decline of the average fleet age together with a strong maintenance regime continues to improve the MDBF.

As noted earlier, Metro completed CY2014 with the highest MDBF in Metrobus history at 8,309 miles. For FY15, the MDBF is 7,181 miles, reduced from the 7, 537 miles reported in the 2013 update. As reported in previous plans there is a heavy correlation between MDBF and fleet age. The average fleet age reported in the previous plan was 6.4 years, whereas this fleet plans reported fleet age is 7.6 years (Table-4.1), and explains partly the slight decline in the MDBF.

With the replacement of older fleets, Metro has been able to reduce the average age of the fleet and thereby increasing their performance and reliability. Figure 5-2 illustrates the correlation between average age and MDBF, with average age explaining about 55% of the variation in MDBF over time.



Figure 5-2: Mean Distance Between Failures vs Average Fleet Age



Over the last ten years Metro was able to meet or exceed half of its targeted MDBF, set by the maintenance program. Figure 5.3 shows the target and actual MDBF from 2006 to 2015. Over the years Metro has made significant progress in improving the fleet service reliability by increasing the mean distance between failures. The mean distance in 2006 of 6,192 miles dipped to 5,548 in 2009 and improved to 7,154 miles in 2015. Overall, as depicted in the chart below, the MDBF has shown an average increase of close to 2 percent per year over the last ten years.

Figure 5-3: Target and Actual MDBF



The correlation between MDBF and average vehicle age explains about 55 percent of the cause. It is also determined that the oldest buses, those that are most likely to fail, were the diesel fleets. Since the last fleet plan update, due to the replacement of these old buses with new fuel technology vehicles, the size of the standard diesel fleet has decreased drastically thereby limiting the failure rate.

While Figure 5-2 above shows correlation between average fleet age and MDBF over time, there is some variation in MDBF not explained by fleet average age. This leaves some opportunity for other factors such as fuel type or usage rate to play a role.

Figure 5-4 below compares the MDBF for 2012 and 2015. Note the significant decline in reliability of the CNG and improvement in reliability of Clean Diesel fleet. The lack of CNG fueling facility has hampered the expansion of the fleet and the majority of the CNG fleets are bought between 2001 and 2005. The average age of the CNG fleet is 11 years while the Clean Diesel fleet average age is 7.7 years.

Figure 5-4: Mean Distance Between Failures by Vehicle Technology



5.3. Types of Maintenance

Two types of maintenance are performed on the Metrobus fleet: Preventative and Corrective maintenance.

• Preventative Maintenance (PM): is a scheduled maintenance program to keep equipment in good working order, prevent in-service failures, and meet certain vehicle regulatory requirements. The Mid-life bus overhaul, part of the PM, is critical for maintaining the safety, performance, and reliability of the bus fleet throughout its life. The mid-life overhaul, developed in the early 90’s, was designed to maintain buses in a state of good repair, reduce in-service breakdowns, improve safety and reliability, and introduce standardization across the fleet as possible.

• Corrective Maintenance (CM): is an un-scheduled maintenance to respond to unexpected vehicle breakdowns, malfunctions and accidents.

Over the past few years, significant improvements in fleet reliability has been made through a combination of bus replacements and a robust maintenance program. The average fleet age has also been reduced to 7.6 years from the 8.7 years reported in the 2010 plan. As a result the failure rate of buses has been reduced significantly thereby improving the reliability of service. Metro has been meeting its goal of 7.5 average fleet age since 2012, with a minor discrepancy in 2015, and this fleet plan projects that it will continue to meet this goal in the coming ten years (see Section 4.4.3).

In the previous fleet plan update it was stated that, in early 2013 Metro would begin a “mini-overhaul” at approximately three years of age. But following a review of the scope and cost, it wasn’t found to be cost effective and as a result not implemented. The scope will be further reviewed in the coming years.



5.3.1. Preventive Maintenance (PM) The Metrobus scheduled PM program sustains bus reliability by detecting and correcting potential defects. Buses are withdrawn from service at regular mileage-based intervals for preventive maintenance actions including inspecting equipment and conducting routine service. The schedule is developed based on manufacturer recommendations and WMATA experience. Measures include lubrication, replacing filters, replenishing fluids and making adjustments, cleaning of exterior and interior surfaces, and scheduled replacement of electrical and mechanical equipment. Table 5-2 shows schedules for the preventive maintenance program.

Table 5-2: Preventive Maintenance Schedule

Inspection Type Inspection Interval Labor Hours Buses/Day

ADA Equipment Maintenance 90 Days & Annual 3.21 44A-Inspection 6,000 Miles 8.00 36B-Inspection Bi-Weekly 1.00 107Bus Interior Cleaning Daily / Weekly 4.00 1501Bus Steam Cleaning 6,000 Miles 2.95 36Camera Maintenance Bi-Annual 4.00 12Clever Devices Annual 2.00 6Coolant and System Care On-going 0.32 12Engine Tune Up 36,000 Miles 5.10 6Fire Suppression Bi-Annual 5.00 12Fluid Analysis - Various Varies 0.52 36GFI Farebox Maintenance Varies 1.10 7Heavy Maintenance Overhaul 7½ Years - 20HVAC Inspection 90 Days/Monthly 4.32 24Interior Cleaning Monthly 2.00 69Service Lane Activity Daily 0.32 1501



A-inspection provides the primary Metrobus vehicle inspection and service, completed every 6,000 miles. It covers the entire vehicle including driver’s equipment and controls, passenger interior, vehicle exterior, engine and engine compartment, transmission, battery, chassis, lubrication, and articulation equipment (if pertinent) and culminates with a complete road test.

Each bus goes through daily and bi-weekly regular inspections to ensure day-to-day operations. Service lane activity is a daily cursory inspection concurrent with the routine refueling and service of the vehicle. It includes checking the farebox, fluid levels, lights, doors and interlocks. The interior is also swept, and the exterior is washed.

B-Inspection is done bi-weekly and follows a checklist of bus equipment condition and operation inspection which includes safety and weather-related equipment, passenger seats, stop chimes, doors, floors, windows, wheelchair equipment, brakes, axles, tires, battery, fluid levels, wires and hoses.

5.3.1.1 Mid-Life Overhaul Mid-life overhaul, an integral part of the PM program, is another component of the fleet management plan. After 7.5 years of service, a Metrobus will have traveled about 248,000 miles. Many critical parts will wear out and basic overhauls will not be enough to maintain the expected performance.

Initiated in 1994, the Heavy Maintenance Overhaul Program provides for the rehabilitation of bus mechanical and electrical systems, including overhaul of the engine, transmission, pneumatic equipment, doors, wheelchair lifts, destination signs, suspension, and other structural components. In addition, the interior and exterior of the bus are repainted and all upholstery is replaced.

Heavy overhaul incorporates new technology and safety enhancements, keeps the fleet in compliance with air quality requirements, and permits standardization of configuration across bus fleets of varying ages. Buses undergoing Mid Life overhauls is a function of the number of new buses purchased in a given year, available funding and manpower as well as the fleet spare ratio.

On average, each year Metro plans to replace approximately 100 of its old fleet with new buses, in addition to any expansion buses bought. Over the years Metro’s procurement of buses has varied in numbers. Between 2005 and 2015 the total number of buses bought for replacement and expansion were 1,327 averaging over 120 buses per year. This has led to a demand for Mid-Life overhauls exceeding the typical 100 buses per year capacity. With no major changes



to the maintenance capacity it will potentially lead to a situation where the overhaul program happening later than the ideal scheduled time. Previous plan to increase capacity from 100 to 116 overhauls per year has not materialized. Currently, 20 buses are in overhaul process at any given time, and each week, the program accepts two in-service buses and releases two buses completing rehabilitation.

Table 5-3 presents the mid-life overhaul projection. The overhaul projection shows that beginning in 2019 a significant part of the fleet overhaul maintenance work will be done more than a year later than the standard 7.5 years. As indicated above, the main reason for this is the procurement of a higher number of new buses over the past years without the corresponding increase in the maintenacne capacity of the heavy overhaul functions. Based on the current projection, from 2022 until 2025 less than 10 percent and in some years less than 5 percent of the mid-life overhaul will be done on time. This indicates that the capacity of the mid-life overhaul functions isn’t keeping up with the fleet growth. With the planned transfer of the heavy maintenance overhaul to Andrews Federal Center and proposed changes to increase the spare ratio, it is anticipated that more capacity will be available to address the need for mid-life overhaul (See section 3.7.3 and 5.5). Figure 5.5 illustrates the heavy overhaul production flow and basic scope of work.

5.3.2. Corrective Maintenance (CM) With a substantial preventive maintenance program, Metro is able to optimize the corrective maintenance requirement and minimize the accompanying service quality degradation. However, unexpected breakdowns will occur even on new systems and components, and all corrective maintenance is required to be complete within 48 hours unless awaiting shop repair or deferred for parts.



Table 5-3: Mid-Life Overhaul Schedule

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026Maintenance Capacity 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Year in Service Quantity

2001 99 51 492002 64 32 28 42003 21 3 22005 250 6 104 97 43 02006 165 45 78 422007 25 1 20 42008 125 1 4 29 85 62009 100 2 83 8 72010 148 5 83 602011 100 1 26 732012 119 27 922013 110 8 972014 105 3 96 62015 80 3 772016 215 15 100 100

83 83 111 99 89 83 91 91 94 92 93 100 100 100 99 98 100 100

Key On-TimeEarly Late

Yearly Total

Rehab Year



5.4. Maintenance Capacity for Fleet

There are four categories of maintenance at Metro as outlined below: warranty, shop, garage and retrofit. The capacity of Metro’s operating maintenance is a function of the capacity of the divisions. The following summarizes each of the scheduled maintenance activities.

1. Warranty Maintenance: Service and repair of systems and equipment that are still under the manufacturer’s warranty. This work is specified by the equipment manufacturer and is required to be accomplished in order to preserve the warranty on the product.

2. Shop Maintenance: Heavy repair shop work involving activities such as accident repair, scheduled equipment overhaul and unscheduled corrective maintenance (e.g. engine or transmission replacement).

3. Garage Maintenance: The bulk of Metrobus preventive and corrective maintenance is accomplished at the individual garage level.

4. Retrofit Maintenance: Activities at this level include manufacturer’s recall repairs, and special item retrofits.

In 2015, on an average weekday, a total of 211 buses (Table 3.10) have undergone different categories of maintenance including heavy overhaul. This indicates that 14.1 percent of the total scheduled fleet is tied up with maintenance activity each day. In the previous fleet plan update, with the opening of Shepherd Parkway, the total garage storage capacity has increased from 1,524 to 1,740 buses and the maintenance capacity has also increased proportionally. Since then, the closure of Royal Street Division has reduced the garage storage capacity by 83 and with an additional 34 storage capacity created at Western, the current total storage capacity is 1,691. As a result the maintenance capacity has been reduced proportionally to 216, as shown in Table 5-4. The planned opening of Cinder Bed Road Division in FY2019 (December 2018), is intended to replace Royal Street Division and to provide an expansion of service capacity in Virginia.



Table 5-4: Current Maintenance Capacity

5.5. Distribution of Maintenance Functions

Since the previous fleet plan update, there was one major change to the distribution of fleet maintenance functions and that is the closure of the Royal Street operating division.

Table 5-5 shows a summary of existing Metro maintenance facilities.

Table 5-5: List of Maintenance Facilities

Garage Capacity

Maintenance Type

Maintenance Capacity

% of Storage Capacity

Maintenance Capacity

% of Storage Capacity

Warranty 17 1.00% 17 1.00%Shop 47 2.80% 49 2.80%

Garage 144 8.50% 148 8.50%Retrofit 8 0.50% 9 0.50%

Total 216 12.80% 223 12.80%

2012

1,740

2015

1,691

Facility Location Facility Type

Bladensburg District of Columbia Operating DivisionNorthern District of Columbia Operating DivisionShepherd Parkway District of Columbia Operating DivisionWestern District of Columbia Operating DivisionMontgomery Montgomery County, MD Operating DivisionLandover Prince George's County, MD Operating DivisionSouthern Avenue Prince George's County, MD Operating DivisionFour Mile Run Arlington County, VA Operating DivisionWest Ox Fairfax County, VA Operating Division

Bladensburg District of Columbia Heavy RepairCarmen Turner Prince George's County, MD Heavy Repair



As noted above, by the end of FY15 the demand for vehicle storage and running maintenance is 1,571 spaces. Currently there are 1,691 storage spaces in the nine operating divisions, which is above the fleet requirements. The capacity of Metrobus facilities to store and maintain the fleet, planned and proposed changes to these facilities, including Cinder Bed and Andrews Federal Center will be presented on a separate document titled “2017 Metrobus Facilities Plan”.

The 2013 fleet plan update stated that Metro's capacity for operating maintenance will allow a maximum of approximately 223 buses undergoing maintenance at any one time. As indicated in Section 5.4, the current operating maintenance capacity is 216 buses. The previous plan also indicated that there will be an increase in heavy overhaul capabilities from 100 to 116 per year in early 2013. It was stated, this increase in capacity will allow up to 23 buses to be undergoing heavy overhaul at any given time. However, the planned increase in the heavy overhaul capabilities has not been implemented.

Andrews Federal Center is planned to open in FY18. With the transfer of mid-life overhaul functions to Andrews, it is anticipated that the total number of maintenance bays will increase from the current 36 to 46. The rebuilding of Bladensburg Division is also anticipated to increase overall capacity. These planned development changes are anticipated to address the shortcomings identified in the mid-life overhaul capacity and cater for future fleet growth.

5.6. Projection of Demand for Maintenance of Revenue Vehicles

The demand for maintenance facilities is a function of fleet size and age. Table 5-6 below shows the projection of fleet maintenance demand up to FY25, based on the growing demand for additional bus service in the Metrobus service area. Table 5-7 illustrates the growth in demand for maintenance capped by the planned fleet expansion, with only 180 expansion buses delivered between FY17 and FY25.

It should be noted that the current plans for expansion of only 180 buses results in a daily maintenance total of 273 by FY25, whereas a fleet expansion that would cover the region’s growing demand would result in a daily maintenance total of 334.



Table 5-6: Projection of Maintenance Demand for Revenue Vehicles (based on growing demand for bus service)

Table 5-7: Projection of Maintenance Demand for Revenue Vehicles (based on planned fleet procurement)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Operating Fleet 1,300 1,428 1,462 1,498 1,533 1,585 1,631 1,685 1,724 1,763 1,809Net Increase 0 128 34 36 35 52 46 54 39 39 46

Maintenance Total 200 218 269 276 282 292 301 311 318 325 334Operating Maintenance 180 198 249 256 262 272 281 291 298 305 314Mid-Life Overhauls (concurrent) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Operating Fleet Total 1,500 1,646 1,731 1,774 1,815 1,877 1,932 1,996 2,042 2,088 2,143 , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Operating Fleet 1,300 1,315 1,335 1,355 1,375 1,395 1,415 1,435 1,455 1,475 1,495Net Increase 0 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Maintenance Total 200 200 243 247 250 254 258 262 265 269 273Operating Maintenance 180 180 223 227 230 234 238 242 245 249 253Mid-Life Overhauls (concurrent) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Operating Fleet Total 1,500 1,515 1,578 1,602 1,625 1,649 1,673 1,697 1,720 1,744 1,768Actual Fleet 1,645 1,660 1,680 1,700 1,720 1,740 1,760 1,780 1,800 1,820 1,840



SECTION SIX: CONCLUSIONS

6.1. Peak Vehicle Supply and Demand

As illustrated in Section 3 and 4 above, Metrobus has more demand for bus transit than can currently be provided by Metro. Metrobus lacks the number of vehicles to provide a state of good service, i.e., to ensure that the criteria of productivity, reliability, capacity, and adequate frequency are met. Section 3 highlighted Metrobus entered FY16 with 117 fewer buses than required to meet a state of good operation. Table 3-11 illustrates that Metro will need 595 additional buses to satisfy demand that meets the need for state of good operations, Priority Corridor Network and Emerging Corridors implementation, and other fleet needs for new service. Section 3.7.3 addresses the current need to increase the fleet Spare Ratio from 15.6% to 18.5% which will help reduce the gap between fleet demand and supply. Metrobus will continue to uses older bus fleets and have devised a set of strategies (see Section 6.2) to overcome the gap in fleet demand and supply.

Section 4 described the current Metrobus fleet procurement plan, which supplies 20 expansion buses per year beginning FY17. To satisfy some of the fleet needs of FY16, 15 older buses have been added to the revenue fleet. Overall the gap between the fleet demand and supply is 448 buses as illustrated in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1. Projected Fleet Demand, Fleet Supply, and Garage Capacity*

Note * - Garage capacity will be discussed in detail on a separate document “2017 Metrobus Facilities Plan”



Figure 6-1 also illustrates that, if the growing need for buses were to be met through new funding streams, the ability for Metro to provide adequate maintenance and storage for the fleet will be exceeded. Additional storage and maintenance facilities are needed in the core operation areas if the fleet is to expand to meet the growing demand. This will be presented in detail on a separate document that covers Metrobus garage facilities.

6.2. Long Term Challenges

There is much uncertainty in finding funding streams that will support the fleet needs of Metrobus services. Finding convenient locations to build garage facilities that will support the core service area has also been a major challenge. The challenges faced by Metrobus were described throughout the report and are summarized below:

1) The demand for Metrobus is currently greater than the supply and this mismatch will continue to grow throughout the ten year period of this plan.

2) Metro's Priority Corridor Network program requires 147 additional buses on top of those needed for state of good operations, Emerging Corridors, Spare Ratio and other fleet needs.

3) Funding for fleet expansion is currently limited to 180 new buses to be procured between 2017 and 2025.

4) Metrobus management may decide to maintain older buses in the revenue fleet to provide state of good operations, prioritizing scheduled service over lowered maintenance costs and increased reliability.

To overcome the long term challenges WMATA:

1. Continues to implement the strategic plans outlined in Momentum (http://wmata.com/momentum.)

2. Developed a 10-Year Capital Needs Inventory (CNI) to quantify existing and anticipated capital needs to advance or maintain State of Good Repair (SGR) of assets, meet regulatory compliance, and invest in necessary enhancements to ensure a safe and modern system that continues to support the region’s economic competitiveness.

3. Approved a new six year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) FY2018-FY2023 that provides continued investment for bus replacement and mid-life overhaul service. The CIP, by making available funds to replace older buses with new ones, plays a key role in the provision of a reliable and consistent bus service and maintaining a younger average age for buses.



4. Plans to implement a new fleet fuel mix technology that favors clean diesel. The implementation of this strategy will help to reduce the burden of capital investment and ongoing maintenance costs.

5. Initiates a State of Good Operations (SOGO) process annually to make targeted improvements to deliver and maintain quality of service. This is accomplished by reducing overcrowding, improving on-time performance, and re-structuring or eliminating routes or portions of routes to provide more productive service.

6. Has been advocating for a stable, dedicated funding stream. Working with the regional stakeholders and decision makers, WMATA is developing a more predictable and dedicated funding source to ensure that the resources required for procuring the fleet need and their maintenance are met.



ADDENDUM

1.0. Safe Track

In June 2016, Metro started SafeTrack, an accelerated track work plan to address safety recommendations and rehabilitate the Metrorail system to improve safety and reliability. The plan significantly expands maintenance time on weeknights, weekends and midday hours and includes 16 "Safety Surges" - long duration track outages for major projects in key parts of the system.

During the duration of the SafeTrack period, Metrobus provided shuttle bus service to transport customers between sections of the Metrorail System that were closed for maintenance work. The need for additional peak period bus capacity was accommodated from the Ready Reserve Fleet (detailed in Section 4.3.4). In FY2018 three major closures of parts of the Green, Red and Yellow Metrorail lines are planned that will require bus shuttle services.

The table below shows a sample of the fleet requirements for three completed SafeTrack surges and three more round-the-clock station closures planned for FY2018. As shown on the table, 56 buses are the highest peak buses needed and Metro was able to accommodate this demand from the Ready Reserve Fleet.

Addendum 1: Fleet Required and Planned For Shuttle Services

2.0. Ridership

Ridership on both Metrorail and Metrobus has shown a sustained decline in FY16 and FY17. The decline in Metrobus ridership is related to rail ridership decline. The bus lines heavily impacted are those that provide feeder services to rail stations closed for SafeTrack maintenance work. In addition to safety and reliability problems on Metrorail, other external

AM PM3 & 4 National Airport - Braddock Road 07/05/16 - 07/18/16 54 56 40 40

15 Stadium Armory - New Carrollton 05/16/17 - 06/15/17 45 27 44 4416 Shady Grove - Twinbrook 06/17/17 - 06/25/17 45 45 30 30

FY2018 Naylor Road - Branch Avenue 08/05/17 - 08/20/17 15 15 15 15FY2018 Fort Totten - Silver Spring 11/23/17 - 12/10/17 25 25 20 15FY2018 Huntington - King Street 05/12/18 - 27/12/18 25 25 20 15

Number of Metrobuses

Surge # Decription Date Weekday Saturday Sunday



factors contributed to the ridership decline on both Metrorail and Metrobus, including - sustained reduced fuel prices, telecommuting, alternate work schedules, availability of transport alternatives such as Uber and Lyft, are among the factors cited for the steady decline in Metro’s ridership over the last couple of years.

Since the preparation of this Fleet Plan, Metrobus ridership declined by 4.1% in FY2016. In FY2017, ridership is estimated to decline by an additional 3.9%*. At the time Section Two: Ridership Demand Growth was written, it was anticipated that ridership would grow by 1 percent over this Fleet Plan’s planning period.

An analysis of bus ridership divided into two groups, trips that involved a transfer to and from rail, and those that did not, revealed that rail related bus ridership is falling four times faster than those that are not related to rail. The analysis also indicated that more than half of bus ridership loss over the past three years is directly related to rail ridership loses.

However, the decline in bus ridership did not have a significant effect on the total Metrobus fleet requirements and was not accompanied with a reduction in the bus fleet. The total fleet requirement from FY2015 – FY2017 is presented below.

Addendum 2: Bus Fleet Assignment

Source: Metrobus Fleet Assignment

* Note that the FY16 and FY17 ridership data are from the farebox, and count paying passengers only. There may be a significant number of passengers who are not counted in the data.

Fleet Assignment Jun-15 Jun-16 Jun-17

Peak Vehicle Requirement 1300 1281 1260Spare Buses 200 201 201Rehab. & Special Projects Contingency 43 40 62Rail Shuttle Contingency 0 61 60Other 5 5 0

Total Buses Assigned 1548 1588 1583



As shown in the table above the total buses assigned for scheduled and unscheduled services have increased over the most recent two year period, except for a minor decrease in the peak vehicle requirement. This drop is due to service reductions.

The reason for maintaining the peak fleet requirement is mainly due to the fact that existing service provision was constrained by lack of fleet. The Fleet Management Plan Section 2.4.3 and Section 3 highlighted that the number of buses put in service was far below the fleet requirement and as a result service demand was constrained. To improve service reliability, reduce overcrowding and meet policy frequency standards in FY16, Metro needed an additional 117 buses during the peak period, but this couldn’t be achieved for lack of fleet.

The inability to put the required number of buses in service led to an increase in overcrowding, and reliability of service suffered. It should be noted that the effect of the decline in bus ridership over the last couple of years is reflected more in the reduction of bus overcrowding instead of the fleet requirement. A Ridecheck data analysis (see Addendum 3 & 4 below) shows that the level of bus overcrowding has eased significantly since FY15 – the start of ridership decline. The tables below present the number of Metrobus routes and trips that are overcrowded and the decline in overcrowding over the same time period.

Addendum 3: Routes with Overcrowding Problems

Source: Metrobus Ridecheck Data Analysis

Addendum 4: Trips with Overcrowding Problems

Source: Metrobus Ridecheck Data Analysis

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM PeakAug, 2015 62 51 267 273 23.2% 18.7%Aug, 2016 51 35 249 253 20.5% 13.8%Mar, 2017 33 25 249 253 13.3% 9.9%

Signup% Routes

Overcrowded>120% AVG MAX

Load Routes Total Routes

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM PeakAug, 2015 254 231 3,615 4,518 7.0% 5.1%Aug, 2016 151 126 3,557 4,462 4.2% 2.8%Mar, 2017 77 75 3,605 4,498 2.1% 1.7%

Signup% Trips

Overcrowded>120% AVG MAX

Load Trips Total Trips



As can be seen from the above tables, the most recent data shows that after sustained ridership decline Metro still requires additional buses to overcome crowding problems and provide a reliable service. The fleet requirement for rail shuttle services, arising from SafeTrack and successor programs, has contributed to the slight increase in the total assignment of the fleet over the most recent two year period.



APPENDICES



Appendix 1: Metrobus Fleet by Type (21 June, 2015)

Division

CNG Hybrid Clean Diesel

Clean Diesel CNG Hybrid Diesel CNG Hybrid Diesel

District of Columbia 23 25 17 0 196 387 66 22 3 21 760

Bladensburg 23 0 0 0 196 0 22 22 3 0 266Northern 0 0 0 0 0 101 28 0 0 21 150Shepherd Parkway 0 11 17 0 0 181 16 0 0 0 225Western 0 14 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 119

Maryland 0 0 10 121 3 282 56 2 19 0 493

Landover 0 0 10 40 0 105 22 0 0 0 177Montgomery 0 0 0 0 0 164 31 0 19 0 214Southern Avenue 0 0 0 76 0 0 3 0 0 0 79Carmen Turner 0 0 0 5 3 13 0 2 0 0 23

Virginia 12 0 6 0 204 96 0 0 0 0 318

Four-Mile Run 12 0 6 0 204 0 0 0 0 0 222West Ox Road 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 96

System Total 35 25 33 121 403 765 122 24 22 21 1571

Small Standard ArticSystem Total



APPENDIX 2: Peak Vehicle Requirement by Division and Bus Type

AM PM AM PM AM PM

District of Columbia 65 60 512 502 46 46 624 14 638 760

Bladensburg 23 22 166 166 25 25 214 4 218 266Northern 0 0 104 96 21 21 125 5 130 150

Shepherd Parkway 28 28 154 155 0 0 183 4 187 225Western 14 10 88 85 0 0 102 1 103 119

Maryland 10 10 328 352 19 19 381 9 390 470

Landover 10 10 120 133 0 0 143 3 146 177Montgomery 0 0 143 154 19 19 173 5 178 214

Southern Ave 0 0 65 65 0 0 65 1 66 79

Virginia 18 18 248 247 0 0 266 6 272 318

Four Mile 18 18 166 165 0 0 184 5 189 222West Ox 0 0 82 82 0 0 82 1 83 96

Total 93 88 1088 1101 65 65 1271 29 1300 1548

Total Fleet

Assigned

Small Standard Articulated Scheduled PVR

Strategic and

Headway

Total PVR



Appendix 3: Allocation of Additional Buses for Revenue Service

(Net Change from Existing to 2025)

PCN Emerging Corridors

Service Adjustment

New Service

Elevator and Emergency

ShuttleSpares

Total Additional

Fleet Required

District of Columbia 76 50 102 0 4 62 293Maryland 53 20 113 0 4 46 236Virginia 18 17 43 8 3 26 115

System Total 147 87 257 8 11 134 644



Appendix 4: Allocation of Expansion Buses for Revenue Service

(Net Change from Existing to 2025)

Small Buses

Standard Buses

Articulated Buses

Total New Buses Share

District of Columbia 0 251 44 295 45.9%Maryland 0 209 26 235 36.4%Virginia 0 114 0 114 17.7%

System Total 0 574 70 644 100.0%



Appendix 5: Fleet Demand and Supply Balance

Fiscal Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Scheduled PVR (Beginning of Year) 1261 1272 1277 1302 1329 1354 1396 1432 1475 1503 1530Change in PVR 39 156 185 196 204 231 235 253 249 260 279Spare Buses Required 200 218 269 276 282 292 301 311 318 325 334Other Buses 145 139 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97Total Fleet (End of Year) 1645 1785 1828 1871 1912 1974 2029 2093 2139 2185 2240

New Buses 80 215 20 130 152 125 117 120 120 120 120Old Buses Added to Service 85 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Retired Buses (80) (215) 0 (110) (132) (105) (97) (100) (100) (100) (100)Net Change 85 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20End of Year Total 1645 1660 1680 1700 1720 1740 1760 1780 1800 1820 1840

Supply vs. Demand at End of Year 0 (125) (148) (171) (192) (234) (269) (313) (339) (365) (400)Percent Difference 0% -8% -9% -10% -11% -13% -15% -18% -19% -20% -22%

Garage Capacity at End of Year 1,691 1,691 1,691 1,771 1,689 1,709 1,709 1,709 1,694 1,694 1,694

Total Fleet Requirements

Total Fleet Supply

Supply / Demand Balance

Garage Capacity



Appendix 6: Maximum Buses to be Assigned and Scheduled (21 June 2015)

DIVISIONS SUN PVR

SAT PVR

BASE PVR

A M PVR

P M PVR

MAX SCHED

PVR

STRA - TEGIC FLEET

HEAD - WAY

MGMT

MAX STRA HDWY

15.6% SPARES

RATIO

ACTUAL BUS

NEED

GARAGE CAPACITY

BLADENSBURG 95 100 104 214 213 214 3 1 218 34 252 257

SHEPHERD PKWY 71 89 73 182 183 183 3 1 187 27 214 250

SOUTHERN AVE 0 0 34 66 65 65 1 0 66 10 76 103

LANDOVER 44 64 76 130 143 143 3 0 146 23 169 210

FOUR MILE RUN 68 95 66 184 183 184 3 2 189 29 218 218

WEST OX 0 0 31 82 82 82 1 0 83 13 96 100

MONTGOMERY 51 60 82 162 173 173 5 0 178 28 206 240

NORTHERN 43 59 50 125 117 125 1 4 130 20 150 175

WESTERN 40 45 44 102 95 102 1 0 103 16 119 138

SYSTEM TOTAL 412 512 560 1247 1254 1272 21 8 1300 200 1500 1691Updated: 06/25/2015

Note: Landover Fleet includes 6 high-back with luggage racks dedicated to BWI service which are not included in the 15.6% system spare ratio. Shepherd Parkway Fleet includes 13 Branded Buses for Metroway Services that are not included in the 15.6% system spare ratio.

Documents

2017 METROBUS FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN - … METROBUS FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN . ... CURRENT METROBUS REVENUE FLEET BY PROCUREMENT YEAR ... The 2017 Metrobus Fleet Management and Facilities